Overreaction

[zoogs]

Sure, we have been heading in this direction for a while. But, heading. We were undeniably on a different path for the 2010 year until Taylor took over in fall camp. Neither Lee or Green (I guess mostly Lee) would be the ideal QB to run this new offense we're going in. There is nothing wrong with adapting to the skillsets of the players you have. But without Taylor's meteoric rise to starting QB, our offense this year would have been a ton different.

If we really have been recruiting solely for this offense since Bo got here, how come we have RBs in Ward, DTray, and even Rex who are not ideal/prototypical zone read backs? Same for the OL, I think. I do think we have been recruiting towards a change in direction, but not such a drastic one this soon.

 

[knapplc]

Perhaps they're more suited to Bo's offensive vision than you think. Don't you find it hard to believe that Bo would recruit these guys if they're not what he's looking for?

And the way it sounds, Taylor's rise to starting QB was less meteoric than inevitable. I think we're mixing message board rumor with reality quite a bit.

 

[schuhbdoo]

It could be worse, look at UCLA, they had to blow up the whole offense and start over with a new coordinator. Norm Chow is suppose to be one of the best in the business and they installed some Pistol nonsense.

 

[Hercules]

Sure, we have been heading in this direction for a while. But, heading. We were undeniably on a different path for the 2010 year until Taylor took over in fall camp. Neither Lee or Green (I guess mostly Lee) would be the ideal QB to run this new offense we're going in. There is nothing wrong with adapting to the skillsets of the players you have. But without Taylor's meteoric rise to starting QB, our offense this year would have been a ton different.

If we really have been recruiting solely for this offense since Bo got here, how come we have RBs in Ward, DTray, and even Rex who are not ideal/prototypical zone read backs? Same for the OL, I think. I do think we have been recruiting towards a change in direction, but not such a drastic one this soon.

If anything, I think Taylor's rise at QB allowed us to move towards the spread option even sooner than we thought we'd be able to. He's the only guy we had that fit that mold.

 

[Hercules]

I'll be the first to say that as of right now, I don't think Watson is a good fit for the spread option offense we're trying to run. At the same time, he knows infinitely more about football than I do, and next year's offense isn't going to be the lousy doormat we saw in the Holiday bowl. All of our coaches (Watson included) are smarter than that, and they've got an entire offseason to try to work out the kinks.

I have a tiny problem with this statement.

At the end of the 2009 season, people used the Holiday Bowl as evidence that Nebraska's offense wasn't going to be as bad as it was during the '09 season. Now, you're saying that the Holiday Bowl at the end of the 2010 is not a showcase of further things to come? Forget all the injuries and the motivation - this offense with Watson is NOT an offense.

I see no evidence to support that Watson will turn this around. We return a starter at quarterback - great. As soon as he gets injured again, does the offense spiral into oblivion once more? We lose a running back who, albeit quietly, had a great Husker career. WR, once again, is a huge question mark with guys that have made plays but have also been wildly inconsistent. We return many guys on the OL but lose a huge cog in Henry. Despite having a lot of talent in the cupboard on the OL, I'm still seeing little to no improvement. In fact, I would argue the offensive line got WORSE as the season went along, not better.

We have smart coaches, no doubt. And these coaches know more about football than I probably ever will. But we also have three coaches on offense (Cotton, Watson, and Gilmore) that have run ENTIRELY different offenses in their time, and then we have an OC who's specialty isn't even the offense he is running.

The offense will probably look good again early next season, but I fully believe next year we will have at least one or two games where we fail to score an offensive touchdown, maybe more. More than likely it will come against a team it shouldn't, as well.

Returning a starter at QB should be a pretty big deal, as long as Taylor improves over the offseason. If he gets injured, we're going to have some problems again, but seeing that we now have a couple guys behind him who are the same mold, who pose the same problems for defenses, I think we'll be better off. Cody Green and Zac Lee aren't really going to hurt a good defense with their legs. Brion Carnes and Jamal Turner might be able to.

The reason for limited optimism about the offense is that we will hopefully have enough depth behind Martinez that should he go down again, the offense isn't going to implode. We should be able to plug someone else in without devising an entirely separate gameplan for them.

WRs have been question marks almost every year since the mid 90's, and the OL have been question marks since the Solich era. I don't think either one of those groups are going to return to elite status anytime soon with the current staff, but could they improve a little bit next year? Maybe, and maybe that will be the difference between 7-5 and 12-2 or something.

Again, I'm not saying the offense doesn't have problems - they do, and they need to be addressed. But I sincerely believe people are overreacting. Bo's mantra as a coach is to not get too high or too low, and a big reason for that is because it's just a couple mistakes here and there which are the difference between 13-1 and 10-4.

 

[Enhance]

Even if we go beyond the X's and O's, player consistency and development is still the number one issue I see with the offensive staff, an issue we have not seen with the defense in the last two years.

 

[Hujan]

Offense doesn't always drop off in a bowl game. There were plenty of bowl games around the same time, and offense didn't necessarily drop off in all of them. There have been plenty of high scoring affairs in the MNC, too. It was just an ugly, miscue-filled game for both offenses largely, and I'm not sure that means anything in general. It was just that kind of day. I actually expected a low scoring game too.

True. Offense doesn't have to drop off in a bowl game, but it seems far less likely than an offense will OVER-achieve in the MNC game relative to their regular season than they will UNDER-achieve. I don't know how else to explain the fact that in 2009 and 2010, Oregon was averaging 35-40 points a game and was held to half those numbers in the Rose Bowl against Ohio State and then the MNC against Auburn. Something tells me if those games were played the week after the regular season rather than a month later, it would have been a different story.

I think the pass happy spread does not require a QB who can run at all, unless I am wrong about the scrambling abilities of Kliff Kingsbury, Sonny Cumbie, Graham Harrell, and the like (or New England, 2007). Not sure it has a more downfield presence necessarily than the WCO but you might be right. I thought a key part of those offenses were replacing runs with quick, lateral passes to RB/WRs in the slot that allowed them to make a few yards after the catch. So these short, quick passes. I agree that it does need a good passer though. I'm not sure how much it relies on speed so much as cutting and ability to make plays in space, out of those receivers. Wes Welkers moreso than Randy Mosses, so to speak.

You are right that Texas Tech does not feature scrambling QBs. Note I said it was not a requirement, but is usually a benefit. Cam Newton and Colt McCoy strike me as two QBs who are definitely pass-first, but can run as well. When this happens, the team is deadly. To be technical, I think Texas Tech has more of an Air Raid offense, which as far as I can tell, is basically a pass-heavy spread but without a mobile QB.

Not sure about the pistol, don't know much about it other than how popular it is these days. Really, I think the best offense to combat a defense is an offense that can do anything. Or just enough of variety to keep defenses completely on their heels, because it's not practical that an offense can literally do anything. Again I'll cite New England as a great example of this. Versatility (on both sides of the ball) is what has made that offense dangerous for a long time.

I agree that a versatile offense is the best offense. But if you can't have a versatile offense---and few teams truly can at the college level---then the next best thing is to find a few things and do them well. At least then you make the defense have to worry about conforming to YOU. The worst case scenario is not doing ANYTHING well, which is what we saw at the end of the year this year.

...and all through 2009.

Great post, Hujan.

Thank you kindly, bshirt. Much appreciated.

 

[dergibog]

The main problem with the zone-read is that both potential handlers---the QB or RB---are starting off from a dead stop, so they don't have much time to accelerate to a higher speed before they encounter the D. The Pistol tries to account for this by lining the RB up behind QB, so he has a bit of a running start when he gets the hand-off.

Thank you! I've been saying this for at least two years. I cover a high school football team, and I noticed the same thing. The running back and the quarterback weren't hitting the line of scrimmage with any speed or momentum. The running back is only two yards from the line of scrimmage, instead of 4 or 5 yards back in the "I". The quarterback stands there reading a tackle or guard, and then tries to accelerate. When we played a high school opponent with an "I" formation, it was easy to see a difference in the way the backs hit the hole.

 

[strigori]

When you look around college football, just about any style of offense can be very effective. Be it WCO, classic pro, spread option, triple option or whatever. Our issue is that Watson is trying to be all of those things and we end up with a miss-mashed mess. It main things are to have something you believe in, have a bread and butter, not 'take what the defense gives us, we're multiple' that we keep hearing. Impose your will, don't be passive. If the offense had any identity (like our defense has) they would be decent. And if we had s decent offense we would have consecutive Big 12 titles.

 

[zoogs]

What's the identity of the defense again?

Read and react?

 

[Blackshirtsguru]

What's the identity of the defense again?

Read and react?

Our defense carried us this entire year. Let me rephrase that, they carried us against the tougher teams. Sure the offense looked good when we played cupcakes. Oops forgot about that great offensive performance against the mighty Jackrabbits. The offense will look even worse against the other Big 10 teams we play this season.

 

[zoogs]

I am not talking about looking good or not looking good. I am talking about this inexplicable hangup we have on 'identity'. The truth is the defense takes what the offense throws at them. Likewise for the offense. And not bing able to fit the offensive scheme into some cookie cutter name or label does not mean at all that there's no identity. Being multiple is a bad word but it is really the identity of every offense - just accomplished perhaps, in different ways. I don't think there are many offenses out there that plan to go out there and "take what they want", no matter how good of a motivational phrase that is. Any OC in the country gameplans to attack the opponent and exploit the areas that are open to them.

 

[Hercules]

I am not talking about looking good or not looking good. I am talking about this inexplicable hangup we have on 'identity'. The truth is the defense takes what the offense throws at them. Likewise for the offense. And not bing able to fit the offensive scheme into some cookie cutter name or label does not mean at all that there's no identity. Being multiple is a bad word but it is really the identity of every offense - just accomplished perhaps, in different ways. I don't think there are many offenses out there that plan to go out there and "take what they want", no matter how good of a motivational phrase that is. Any OC in the country gameplans to attack the opponent and exploit the areas that are open to them.

There's a reason that the defense and the offense are called "defense," and "offense." The defense has to react to the offense, that's the nature of any game where there's a defense and an offense. The offense is supposed to attack.

As far I'm concerned, when it comes to having an identity, it's not something that is really debatable, you either have it or you don't. Oregon has an offensive identity. Oklahoma has an offensive identity. Auburn, this year, had an offensive identity. You think of those offenses, and you immediately know what their, "identity" is. Nebraska used to have that: everytime somebody mentioned Nebraska football, people were thinking, "Physical, smashmouth, power running game, option," etc... That was our identity, and we flushed it down the toilet about 7 years ago.

This past season, we had a pretty clear identity for the first time in several years that completely vanished as soon as Martinez went down.

 

[zoogs]

We just couldn't do anything else. The offense was set up hinging on being able to do one thing well and when we lost it, we lost all effectiveness. We either had to keep banging head against wall, or try to change and do things we haven't really been set up to do since August. We went with the former.

Offenses attack, defenses defend, but it's a bit more back and forth than that. A defense can never take away everything at once, short of perfect, flawless execution in every aspect (same idea on offense). You can preach that and hope it happens, but that's never the scheme. If it does happen, you can do whatever you want, it really won't matter. We see this a lot in the OOC schedule. But in all other cases, such as when we aren't playing creampuff opponents, it's a chess match. You can't just say "we are going to do this every single game, regardless of our opponent's skillset on defense or what they are putting out on the field." You have to play weaknesses and exploit the looks they show. If they put a linebacker man-on-man on an insanely athletic tight end with good hands, you let that guy wreak havoc. If they bring a safety down for run support, you know you have the chance to hit them deep if you have the right deep threat. And so on.

It's a lot more nuanced than that of course, but I wouldn't know enough to keep talking about it at length. I'll bring up one example I followed, as a Pats fan this year. Teams were having success running at the Patriots early on, and it was often accomplished by taking the defense out of their base packages. For example, lining up with three or four wide and forcing the Patriots into their Nickel/Dime packages, and then running it at them.

The success we had earlier this year also showed good multiplicity out of the offense. The Huskers ran the zone read all over Kansas State because that was what they decided KSU's weakness was. Flip the switch to Oklahoma State, and we torched them through the air in a deadly display of firepower. Really made them pay for committing enough to stop Taylor. Then against Missouri, it wasn't the zone read or aerial assault that did it, but lining up and running it straight at them. I think that was a similar plan we had in the '09 CCG against Texas, which was actually good for us, and what allowed a real banged-up and ineffective offense to even put together four scoring drives against them. Of course they tightened up and we couldn't punch it in, which is disappointing. Our plan against Texas this year was similar in that it was successful and exposed the Longhorns, but yet again we couldn't punch it in.

My point is that this year should be a showcase for what a multiple attack can do, even if we are limited in scope. Once that playbook is opened up more, and we have even more weapons at our disposal...it should be a good show, but of course, execution is always the bottom line. I know some people want the identity of the offense to be "dominant execution" but that's not really an identity and it's not something we can achieve any longer. We had a great run of it - but the landscape is no longer the same.

 

[Hercules]

Zoogies, the success you're talking about that we had this year (against KSU, OSU, Missouri) was a result of the same run-first system week in and week out, but with minor adjustments to game plan and playcalling. One of the Helu's big runs against Missouri was the same play as his big run against Washington (1st game), and it was set up each time by the zone read.

I don't by any means think that having an identity means you do the exact same thing every week, it just means that you stand for something, which we did early this season. The mid-90's Nebraska teams were the same way - they'd pound you on the ground, and as soon as the defense leaned a little too hard towards stopping the run, they'd go over the top. We did the same thing early this year, all the way through the Missouri game when Martinez got hurt.

That multiplicity wasn't the result of being really good at everything, it was the result of being phenomenally good at running the football to the point where the defense had to do so much to stop it that they became vulnerable in other areas of the game (cue: Kyler Reed). But the efficient passing game we had early in the year was the byproduct of our strong running game, and once our running game disappeared, it exposed our passing game for what it was: completely dependent on our running game.

I think that's what people are trying to say when they talk about how they hate the idea of "multiple." I think those people (myself included) think it's easier and just as effective to establish yourself in one area of the game so well that it opens up other areas of the game, as opposed to becoming equally threatening in every part of the game.

I also truly believe that the system we had run through the Missouri game would have continued to work but for the injury to Martinez. When he went down, we lost our identity because we no longer had a QB who fit that identity. We had to reinvent ourselves for the third year in a row, except this year it came about because of injury whereas the previous two years it came about because of ineffectiveness, and that in part explains why we appeared to get worse this year compared to the previous two years where we saw some improvement by the end of the year.