Our Schizo offense

[SECHusker]

What in the hell type of offense are we trying to build?

Last year we were a spread and this year we are a power offense. We seem to be recruiting linemen that favor the spread (big and tall), but don't recruit the WRs that compliment the spread (short and quick).

We seem to be going for bigger guys at WR, but until i saw Kinnie in the CCG, none of them play like a big guy. Our RBs are not built for a power running game, but we last year we recruited a FB as if we are going to start going to a power running attack.

Both Robinson and Burkhead look more comfortable running in between the tackles, I would imagine this would favor a power running game. But we don't recruit the short and stocky Olinemen that are better at gaining leverage for a power running attack.

I don't think I need to say anything about our QB recruiting.

We recruit TEs in spades, but have greatly under utilized them this year.

All I'm saying is that this is not adding up. Can anyone else make sense of our recruiting?

 

[Husker Richard]

no, and it makes me sick.

 

[dylan]

What in the hell type of offense are we trying to build?

Last year we were a spread and this year we are a power offense. We seem to be recruiting linemen that favor the spread (big and tall), but don't recruit the WRs that compliment the spread (short and quick).

We seem to be going for bigger guys at WR, but until i saw Kinnie in the CCG, none of them play like a big guy. Our RBs are not built for a power running game, but we last year we recruited a FB as if we are going to start going to a power running attack.

Both Robinson and Burkhead look more comfortable running in between the tackles, I would imagine this would favor a power running game. But we don't recruit the short and stocky Olinemen that are better at gaining leverage for a power running attack.

I don't think I need to say anything about our QB recruiting.

We recruit TEs in spades, but have greatly under utilized them this year.

All I'm saying is that this is not adding up. Can anyone else make sense of our recruiting?

i think your confusion might be based upon the fact that our coaches are making do with what they have rather than what they prefer to do offensively. this year, we have a stellar defense and all kinds of problems on offense, so we adapted to that. once we made the switch to a ball control offense that focused almost solely on not turning the ball over and letting defense and special teams take over, we won every game (with the exception of the one the refs had to steal). this approach may not have been sexy to recruits or media, but i'll take wins any day.

as far as what we're going to be doing going forward, i think that's the big question. i think it's obvious we want a strong running game of some sort. i assume the preferred style was the one we started last year with, a WCO with a pro style power running game (see USC, stanford or half of the NFL) and some quarterback run mixed in. when it became obvious last year that we didn't have the blocking (particularly at FB and TE) to pull off such an approach, we adapted to the spread hybrid that gans ran so effectively.

obviously the spread approach didn't work as well this year, but it seems like almost nothing we did worked this year. we obviously had problems at practically every offensive position.

back to the question at hand though, i assumed we'd go with the WCO, pro style power running, but watson was quoted at some point this season saying he wants to go with the spread/WCO hybrid that worked so well last year. so, i guess i'd assume watson's telling the truth.

as to the types of players recruited, i'm not certain that short receivers are necessary for a spread (and FWIW, i think niles paul quite often played like a big receiver). KU's star tandem aren't short. MU's receivers weren't short this year. most of TTech's receivers are pretty big.

i also don't really see an advantage in recruiting shorter linemen for any style of offense. talent (not to mention attitude) is more important than height, but all else being equal, i'm guessing every OL coach in the country is going to take the kid with the longer reach that comes with height.

i also question why you think our running backs aren't built for a power game. do running backs have to be bruisers to be effective in a power running attack? both helu and burkhead seem to be above average backs for a power attack, and robinson looked pretty decent at it as well. as to the fullback, i think it's obvious the coaches see the importance in having one, but that isn't necessarily a clue of which way they're going. even if you do go full time spread, it be nice to keep a FB around for the occasional short yardage play.

as for QB's, there's obviously been an emphasis placed on mobility, so i'm glad to see the coaches recognize the advantage of having a running threat from the position.

 

[zoogs]

The answer is an offense that adapts to the strengths of our personnel. We had a fire-breathing gamer and certified tough SOB in Mr. Joe Ganz last year commanding the troops, and precision route runners who made the tough traffic catches in Swift and Peterson. Also, we had a defense in transition that couldn't be counted on to win games for us.

Result: the offense needed to carry us. And they did their best. We don't have a prayer in some of our victories last year without that kind of offensive gameplan and in the blowout losses running a power game would just be pointless to the point of embarrassing.

Flip switch to this year: our QB looks lost out on the field, our WRs run lazy routes, and our O-line forgot how to block. We can try to put up yards and points but we end up with WRs who turnover the ball as they high-step their way into the endzone untouched and just about every disaster imaginable. On the other hand we have a killer D who can match up to any O in the country and keep them to 10 points or so.

Result: an O that is severely constricted and whose only job is to not make mistakes, keep it safe, churn out the field goals when we can and the opportunistic touchdown when everything clicks. Which isn't often.

It's not that we are moving in any direction or another (or that we should). It's that we recruit a bunch of talented young men into this program, and we make do with what we have. No square pegs into round holes.

 

[SECHusker]

I respect the posts above, but switching to your strengths is not overhauling your offense from year to year. That doesn't make any sense. Name one team that switched from spread to power in one year with the same coaching staff. That does not happen.

As for the TTech's WRs the biggest is only 196 pounds. When running a spread you want a guy or two that is quick in and out of his stand, can stretch the field, or can be elusive in space and those are typically shorter guys because they are quick. I'm not saying you find a big guy that can do that, but we haven't.

It is a lot easier to push someone off the ball if you gain leverage. Taller lineman have to work harder on this.

Helu is a slasher that is better in space and I question his durability to take it up the middle on a consistent basis. Burkhead is a question mark. But right now, I have to agree with Benning on 1620, when he said that on a majority of plays Burkhead typically runs into our guy first before he gets going. Robinson at times seems to avoid the physicality.

We are a cocktail of a bit of this and a bit of that, with no true identity. And it shows in our recruiting.

 

[zoogs]

To add to that, I think that's exactly why we switched mid-year. We didn't want to do that. We weren't doing it against the Sun Belt teams. It's something in the end we were forced to do when we took our lumps with losses to TT and Iowa State.

It's crazy that we were forced to do it this year. I think the blame falls on our WRs and OL for inadequate performance, as well as Lee, although not everything is on his shoulders.

I don't think you usually see teams that just go after a certain type of player for a certain kind of desired identity anymore. We had that with Bill Callahan for a while with all the height/weight requirements. I like what we are trying to do now better: just get players that can ball.

I think there's no reason why players from a variety of spectrums: pass-blockers, run blockers, blazing WRs, possession guys, smashing RBs, slashing RBs, don't all have a place in any offense.

That goes with the pocket passers/dual-threat as well. I've read a lot of posts saying we are going after some pocket passers, some dual threats, and that means we don't know what we want. I'm not so sure about that. I think it's clear that we value good passers first, but you see a lot of good passers nowadays that are pretty mobile too (Lee is freaking fast and athletic, but he's a pocket passer type). And a lesser passer that is tough and can hurt you with his feet (Green), can be molded into this offense as well.

I don't think being multiple and having an identity can't go hand in hand.. Every team's identity will change from year to year with different personnel. We have just had an awful experience with our new personnel this year. Will that change? Gosh, I hope so. (edit) I just realized I'm being very verbose today. Sorry for the extra reading. In a bit of a rambling mood since the Texas loss.

 

[dylan]

I respect the posts above, but switching to your strengths is not overhauling your offense from year to year. That doesn't make any sense. Name one team that switched from spread to power in one year with the same coaching staff. That does not happen.

As for the TTech's WRs the biggest is only 196 pounds. When running a spread you want a guy or two that is quick in and out of his stand, can stretch the field, or can be elusive in space and those are typically shorter guys because they are quick. I'm not saying you find a big guy that can do that, but we haven't.

It is a lot easier to push someone off the ball if you gain leverage. Taller lineman have to work harder on this.

Helu is a slasher that is better in space and I question his durability to take it up the middle on a consistent basis. Burkhead is a question mark. But right now, I have to agree with Benning on 1620, when he said that on a majority of plays Burkhead typically runs into our guy first before he gets going. Robinson at times seems to avoid the physicality.

We are a cocktail of a bit of this and a bit of that, with no true identity. And it shows in our recruiting.

if you still don't know the reason for, or the effectiveness of, the midseason switch, i don't know what to tell you.

as to the player profiles, i think it's obvious that many spread teams use tall receivers, including tech.

please point me to the teams out there that are deliberately focusing on shorter linemen. taller linemen do have to work harder to get leverage, but they have an easier time with hand positioning, particularly in pass blocking, and we are still going to need pass blocking linemen.

burkhead is not a question mark, he has shown to be effective in a power running game. also, i didn't see robinson avoid physicality. not sure what you're talking about. which game? helu might be better as a slasher on the outside zone, but since we apparently suck at blocking it and he wasn't recruited by this staff, i'm not sure what he has to do with their preferred offensive style.

i agree that we lack an offensive identity and i'd like to see one established, but i'm much more interested in winning ball games and going to the turtle, just don't turn it over offense allowed that to happen. we need to worry about re-establishing a culture of winning before we worry about style points.

lets see where we go from here. change is NOT going to happen, so all this constant criticism is doing is fueling the negative perception that the recruits are getting slammed with by opposing coaches.

 

[SECHusker]

We recruit for a chameleon offense, and for me that doesn't work. We recruit guys that are okay in one area but not so okay in another, and when they get here we at times coach them against there strength so they can be okay in all areas (e.g. Lee does not look look comfortable running the option, he doesn't look natural in the zone read, but we consistently push him to be okay in those areas.)

My main concern is I don't think we will ever consistently get the type of players that are good in all areas. So why not establish a true identity through recruiting. Why not recruit guys for a specific system, guys that maybe lacking in one area but are good in another? And when they get here coach them to be great in that one particular area. While good traits are not mutually exclusive in players, are we ever going to get those guys here on a consistent basis? I think not.

I understand changes may not happen, but they should. If we didn't have a stellar defense people would be calling for Bo's head right now. It is not a perception that our offense sucks, that's reality. All recruits need to do is turn on the TV.

 

[huskers1]

I understand continuity is a very big part of any staff and turnover is never a good thing. However, do we keep guys that are failing just to sacrifice turnover? I'll give Wats the benefit of the doubt for one more year, but I have been saying for a while that Gilmore is no good. For years I watched guys like Dan Erickson and Wes Cammack on the field instead of guys like Chris Brooks or Antonio Bell. This year I have watched him insert freakin Meno Holt, our biggest, slowest WR to run a jail break screen. I have watched Gilleylan damn near walk during a crossing route at Mizzou. I don't see our WR's doing anything special for the past 4-5 years that any other team hasn't been doing. We rarely bust off a big run after the catch. Why? Bc he doesn't put his playmakers in the game. Wats is fine for now IMO but Gilmore and possibly Cotton need to go.

 

[dylan]

We recruit for a chameleon offense, and for me that doesn't work. We recruit guys that are okay in one area but not so okay in another, and when they get here we at times coach them against there strength so they can be okay in all areas (e.g. Lee does not look look comfortable running the option, he doesn't look natural in the zone read, but we consistently push him to be okay in those areas.)

My main concern is I don't think we will ever consistently get the type of players that are good in all areas. So why not establish a true identity through recruiting. Why not recruit guys for a specific system, guys that maybe lacking in one area but are good in another? And when they get here coach them to be great in that one particular area. While good traits are not mutually exclusive in players, are we ever going to get those guys here on a consistent basis? I think not.

I understand changes may not happen, but they should. If we didn't have a stellar defense people would be calling for Bo's head right now. It is not a perception that our offense sucks, that's reality. All recruits need to do is turn on the TV.

i agree about lee running the option. our coaches want to have a running quarterback component in the game plan, but it's clear lee isn't comfortable doing it. (though it is worth noting that he had a key run on what should have been the game winning drive against texas). i do wish we'd quit running the option with him and i think that's a valid criticism of watson. however, since watson wasn't in charge of the offense when they recruited lee, i'm not sure what that has to do with recruiting towards a specific system.

so...your main concern is that we can't get well rounded offensive players? i'm not sure what your basis for thinking that is. i think we've actually recruited pretty darn well on offense the last couple of years, to the point that we have a numbers imbalance and we actually need to catch up on defensive recruiting. obviously our offense did suck this year (for various reasons), but recruits and fans need to look back into the distant past of, say, last season to see that we really can operate a balanced offense effective in the air and on the ground.

would you be happier if we continued to air it out this season just so the recruits could see the offensive possibilities? we'd probably be playing in shreveport (or worse) if we'd gone that route, but hey, it's all about the recruiting baby. got to keep the teenagers happy.

 

[dylan]

I understand continuity is a very big part of any staff and turnover is never a good thing. However, do we keep guys that are failing just to sacrifice turnover? I'll give Wats the benefit of the doubt for one more year, but I have been saying for a while that Gilmore is no good. For years I watched guys like Dan Erickson and Wes Cammack on the field instead of guys like Chris Brooks or Antonio Bell. This year I have watched him insert freakin Meno Holt, our biggest, slowest WR to run a jail break screen. I have watched Gilleylan damn near walk during a crossing route at Mizzou. I don't see our WR's doing anything special for the past 4-5 years that any other team hasn't been doing. We rarely bust off a big run after the catch. Why? Bc he doesn't put his playmakers in the game. Wats is fine for now IMO but Gilmore and possibly Cotton need to go.

brooks is constantly injured and bell needs to block to see the field. as to meno and gilleyen, there's a reason they were busted to scout team. some of the attitudes on this team still need to get in line with the new regime. and by the way, cammack rarely saw the field this year and kinnie actually seems to be developing into a weapon.

that said, i agree that every single one of the offensive coaches still needs to prove they deserve their jobs. i just don't agree with firing after one bad year, particularly when we're just starting to reestablish the sort of culture that a winning program needs.

 

[SECHusker]

We recruit for a chameleon offense, and for me that doesn't work. We recruit guys that are okay in one area but not so okay in another, and when they get here we at times coach them against there strength so they can be okay in all areas (e.g. Lee does not look look comfortable running the option, he doesn't look natural in the zone read, but we consistently push him to be okay in those areas.)

My main concern is I don't think we will ever consistently get the type of players that are good in all areas. So why not establish a true identity through recruiting. Why not recruit guys for a specific system, guys that maybe lacking in one area but are good in another? And when they get here coach them to be great in that one particular area. While good traits are not mutually exclusive in players, are we ever going to get those guys here on a consistent basis? I think not.

I understand changes may not happen, but they should. If we didn't have a stellar defense people would be calling for Bo's head right now. It is not a perception that our offense sucks, that's reality. All recruits need to do is turn on the TV.

i agree about lee running the option. our coaches want to have a running quarterback component in the game plan, but it's clear lee isn't comfortable doing it. (though it is worth noting that he had a key run on what should have been the game winning drive against texas). i do wish we'd quit running the option with him and i think that's a valid criticism of watson. however, since watson wasn't in charge of the offense when they recruited lee, i'm not sure what that has to do with recruiting towards a specific system.

so...your main concern is that we can't get well rounded offensive players? i'm not sure what your basis for thinking that is. i think we've actually recruited pretty darn well on offense the last couple of years, to the point that we have a numbers imbalance and we actually need to catch up on defensive recruiting. obviously our offense did suck this year (for various reasons), but recruits and fans need to look back into the distant past of, say, last season to see that we really can operate a balanced offense effective in the air and on the ground.

would you be happier if we continued to air it out this season just so the recruits could see the offensive possibilities? we'd probably be playing in shreveport (or worse) if we'd gone that route, but hey, it's all about the recruiting baby. got to keep the teenagers happy.

Watson was here when we recruited Lee. If fact he was the OC (in title) and QB coach. I think he played major part in him getting here. This year was was not a "particularly bad year" this was a meltdown. Our offense only scored 1 TD vs. top 20 opponents; and 17 TDs vs conference foes (119 pts). That's laughable.

I don't know where you get the view that Witt was going to start of Lee, because if I remember correctly Lee was the starter going into spring ball and that is one of the reasons Witt left.

You make it seem as though Wats is brand new, Wats has been here, in some capacity for 4 years. And instead of owning up to his faults he says crap like 'the offensive players need to mature' and excludes himself from fault. This offense is one sick puppy and that starts at the top, and goes all throughout the recruiting process.

And have you ever thought that maybe last year was the aberration? Until Ganz got in 07 our offense was average at best. Ganz, Swift, and Peterson were the reasons we were good last year. They had amazing chemistry and knew how make something out of a broken play.

I don't understand how you can think our offensive recruiting has been good the last couple of years when only 5 of those guys have seen significant and meaningful playing time. Of course this is a lot of potential, but will the ever reach that potential under these coaches? my answer is no.

Either Wats needs to settle down on who he wants this offense to be or we need to move on before he does more damage.

 

[treyball3]

And have you ever thought that maybe last year was the aberration? Until Ganz got in 07 our offense was average at best. Ganz, Swift, and Peterson were the reasons we were good last year. They had amazing chemistry and knew how make something out of a broken play

This is a good point. I kinda had forgotten, but earlier this season I was thinking how much this offense reminded me of the Sam Keller led offense of 2007. That offense was horrendous too! Maybe SECHusker is on to something here. Last year very well could've been the exception.

 

[dylan]

We recruit for a chameleon offense, and for me that doesn't work. We recruit guys that are okay in one area but not so okay in another, and when they get here we at times coach them against there strength so they can be okay in all areas (e.g. Lee does not look look comfortable running the option, he doesn't look natural in the zone read, but we consistently push him to be okay in those areas.)

My main concern is I don't think we will ever consistently get the type of players that are good in all areas. So why not establish a true identity through recruiting. Why not recruit guys for a specific system, guys that maybe lacking in one area but are good in another? And when they get here coach them to be great in that one particular area. While good traits are not mutually exclusive in players, are we ever going to get those guys here on a consistent basis? I think not.

I understand changes may not happen, but they should. If we didn't have a stellar defense people would be calling for Bo's head right now. It is not a perception that our offense sucks, that's reality. All recruits need to do is turn on the TV.

i agree about lee running the option. our coaches want to have a running quarterback component in the game plan, but it's clear lee isn't comfortable doing it. (though it is worth noting that he had a key run on what should have been the game winning drive against texas). i do wish we'd quit running the option with him and i think that's a valid criticism of watson. however, since watson wasn't in charge of the offense when they recruited lee, i'm not sure what that has to do with recruiting towards a specific system.

so...your main concern is that we can't get well rounded offensive players? i'm not sure what your basis for thinking that is. i think we've actually recruited pretty darn well on offense the last couple of years, to the point that we have a numbers imbalance and we actually need to catch up on defensive recruiting. obviously our offense did suck this year (for various reasons), but recruits and fans need to look back into the distant past of, say, last season to see that we really can operate a balanced offense effective in the air and on the ground.

would you be happier if we continued to air it out this season just so the recruits could see the offensive possibilities? we'd probably be playing in shreveport (or worse) if we'd gone that route, but hey, it's all about the recruiting baby. got to keep the teenagers happy.

Watson was here when we recruited Lee. If fact he was the OC (in title) and QB coach. I think he played major part in him getting here. This year was was not a "particularly bad year" this was a meltdown. Our offense only scored 1 TD vs. top 20 opponents; and 17 TDs vs conference foes (119 pts). That's laughable.

I don't know where you get the view that Witt was going to start of Lee, because if I remember correctly Lee was the starter going into spring ball and that is one of the reasons Witt left.

You make it seem as though Wats is brand new, Wats has been here, in some capacity for 4 years. And instead of owning up to his faults he says crap like 'the offensive players need to mature' and excludes himself from fault. This offense is one sick puppy and that starts at the top, and goes all throughout the recruiting process.

And have you ever thought that maybe last year was the aberration? Until Ganz got in 07 our offense was average at best. Ganz, Swift, and Peterson were the reasons we were good last year. They had amazing chemistry and knew how make something out of a broken play.

I don't understand how you can think our offensive recruiting has been good the last couple of years when only 5 of those guys have seen significant and meaningful playing time. Of course this is a lot of potential, but will the ever reach that potential under these coaches? my answer is no.

Either Wats needs to settle down on who he wants this offense to be or we need to move on before he does more damage.

if you prefer the word "meltdown", i'm OK with that. i think that "particularly bad year" carries the same meaning, but knock yourself out. and are you really claiming that watson hasn't taken any responsibility for the offensive struggles? i am strongly against coaches blaming everything on the kids, but it is OK to point out the obvious some times. the kids do have to get better, obviously it's the coaches job to make sure they do or find someone that can.

aso, watson was in all likelihood involved with getting lee here, but that doesn't mean he brought him here for the offense he wanted to run (it was callahan's offense), and has even less to do with the offense that team pelini wants to run. so, again, i don't see any connection between how lee is used and what offense the coaches prefer.

speaking of the offense, it sucked under dailey, was good under taylor, sucked under keller, was good under gans, and has so far sucked under lee. now, only two of those were under anyone's offense but callahans, so i'm not sure why you're still worried about cally's offense. it's watson's job to show that we can do better. so far he's had one good year and one crappy one. if you can somehow prognosticate how things will go in the future (and which of the teenagers on our team will develop), then good for you. however, i think bo has earned enough faith that he will either get things fixed next year or then make the necessary changes.

by the way, witt left because he wanted the coaches to commit to a starter by the end of spring ball (and for academic reasons), not because lee had already passed him. he may have been feeling some heat, and may have felt that watson was just waiting for lee's higher athletic potential to kick into gear, but witt was ahead of lee last season and when he left the team. i also feel that spano may have had a shot this year, especially after lee struggled.

as for our offensive recruiting the last couple of years:

first year offensive players this year:

bell

burkhead

kinnie

sirles

kerr

martinez

qvale

ash

coffey

pensick

green

robinson

zimmerer

taking out the lineman (out of whom it is unreasonable to expect a first year contribution, though a couple almost did prior to injury), we had 5 out of 8 see the field their first year.

2008 recruits:

marlowe

cooper

ward

osborne

spano

cotton

thompson

reed

henry

okafur

not as impressive a class as 2009 appears to be, but still too early to judge. 5 of the 10 saw meaningful minutes this year.

also, we have a lot of young offensive players. some will pan out, some won't and we definitely need to get some talented ones at a few key spots, but our lack of young depth on defense is much more severe. there's a reason we're taking so many defensive linemen.

 

[SECHusker]

I can't agree that putting a player in for a series or two is meaningful.

I hope that you are right that he deserves another year because it looks like we will have him for at least one more.

But unless something drastically changes I just don't see our offense improving much next year.

Some problems have to do with coaching, some problems have to do with personnel, and a whole lot of problems have to do with an identity crisis.

I just do not believe that one more year is going to solve any of that.