Predict the season outcome based on what we've seen thus far

jmfb said:
It's both the receivers job AND the QBs job to make sure we have 7 players on the LOS

Basic 101 stuff, prior to starting the cadence- the QB checks the offensive alignment, which includes making sure the correct guys are on and off the LOS

I HATE a THIRD AND 2 THAT IS NOW THIRD AND 7 THANKS TO inept simple fundamental stuff like this not being taken care of.

Lose a close game where you play well, get beat by a much better team, I'm fine with all that- Im not fine with beating ourselves with very correctible stuff
Click to expand...
Something that I see some other schools do on bonehead plays like illegal formation and false starts is to pull the offending player for a snap, regardless of down or situation. We've been MUCH better this year on false starts but it's still frustrating to see mental mistakes like that.

 
Come on guys. The Husker offense was in-synch the first half against a ranked UCLA. We ran well. We passed well. We had a 17 play, 92 yard scoring drive, the kind of drive folks here used to yearn for. It wasn't complicated and it was executed with confidence, as it was against Southern Miss, three quarters of the Wyoming game, and some memorable second halves last season.

But a couple things happened in the UCLA game. The UCLA offense and defense both made adjustments. Nebraska did not. And when the things that were working -- our bread and butter -- stopped working, you could watch Nebraska's confidence and execution go out the window. Both sides of the ball. But even moreso on the defense, which has almost no experience of being in sync. In fairness to the offense, they've had a lot of great drives under pressure the past couple seasons. The big game meltdown isn't because of a complicated offensive playbook, it's a teamwide mental breakdown. The players stop doing things they know how to do, start panicking and make mistakes.

I know we chased Shawn Watson out of town because of his fancypants West Coast offense. Is it working at 8th rank Louisville because of Kentucky's higher intellectual capacity than Nebraska, or Louisville's richer and more sophisticated college football tradition?

I also respect the board members who don't know what "multiple" means because I don't either, but I honestly don't understand any singular identity you could give a team. Smashmouth sounds good, but that's an attitude, not a scheme. Texas Tech is an interesting example but that kind of full commitment to the pass is pretty rare, and the teams with those incredible passing stats are almost never part of the national championship discussion, because good defenses can key on those single minded offenses, knowing they can't really go....you know....multiple.

 
Also, as a San Francisco 49ers fan, I gotta tell you that a West Coast Offense and smashmouth football aren't mutually exclusive.

The best thing about having multiple options that work equally well is watching opposing linebackers freeze in their tracks, not knowing where to bite. Just for a second. Then it's too late.

 
Being "multiple" means a bit more than you can effectively run and pass and do it in a couple of different fashions

You can be a "power run" team but in todays world that could mean you are a power or zone run team which are completely different ways of attacking. BTW some years Saban runs more Power than Zone, some years almost all Zone and no Power. It goes to what your linemen can do AND your backs. Reading zone landmarks for running backs is MUCH harder to do than running power and some HS kids havent run a lot of zone- it's not the easiest thing to learn by any stretch. That type of physical run attack is easily married to a Constraint Play Action passing team. Teams use the threat of play action to keep the run open and use that threat to keep defenders at home. Once defenders start going away from their base rule constraint, the offense attacks them with play action. You see a lot of this type of play out of Stanford and Alabama, they do it to perfection.

But you have to be able to pass when you have to- which is not a play action constraint play on 3rd and 15, no matter how many times Frank Solich ran play action on obvious long passing downs, it still isnt something most successful College level coaches do. You have to be able to threaten short, intermediate and long and to at least have a legitimate threat to make the play- the throw and the catch.

Some teams do this WC style, some go to more of a spread approach. But once you go spread to pass, you have to have a running game to go with that as well. With Leach, they had 2-3 running plays, that was it. A zone, stretch and draw play, no options of any kind. Some years it was just zone and draw, they got outside with bubble screens and the like- long handofs. In Leachs defense (Im not a fan) no one is winning National Championships in Lubbock, his approach was a necessity there- it doesnt make a lot of sense in other places. They usually lost because of defense, not offense.

It all goes to priorities, time management and ability to teach. You cant be all things to all people. You dont have to do 10 things well to be a successful "multiple" team. The net is we need to drop some of the stuff we are trying to do, especially things like Speed Option which TM has never done well. The "time expensive" things like Speed Option and even some other timing type plays like mesh and any type of speed motion probably need to go.

Being in sync for parts of games isnt being in sync at all IMO- smooth consistency is what Im looking for.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somehow you've linked "being great" at something to being singular. Not sure how you twisted the words to support your own argument on that one. We need to be good in a few different aspects. A few.....not too many. When you try to do too many things you don't get the repitition you need because you are practicing so many things.

My original point was that we just need something we are great at. Something we execute with perfection every time we run it. Whether it is power run, zone read option, option, short passing game, deep passing game, or play action.....who cares? Just something we execute with consistency. Right now I truly don't feel like we execute anything at a very high level. Not bad, but not great.

 
I think this all whittles down to something we can all agree on - the offense has been really good at times and bad at others. Whatever reason we want to attribute to that, again, I think we can all agree there are areas we need to improve on. But, the offense is still in a pretty good place imho.

The overwhelming problem is mostly just focus/execution (hello, I'm Bo Pelini). I scoff at the idea we didn't make adjustments against UCLA. I think what people mean to say is they don't SEE adjustments on the field, which again, I argue isn't accurate. If you really watch, you'll see our defense/offense trying different approaches. Whether it's different players in different positions or what have you. Case in point, SDSU's first touchdown. We had Gregory lined up behind the LOS with only three down linemen IIRC. Interesting wrinkle to confuse the offense. The problem is that one or two players are messing up an assignment routinely, so even if the coaches make adjustments like this, it's not transitioning into production on the field because somebody keeps making a mistake.

 
Before the season began I was at 10-2 regular season and 11-3 or 12-2 overall. Was being Kool-Aid induced brave and predicting CCG win.

Now, after watching the first 4 games, I have to go with 9-3 or 8-4 regular season and 9-4 or 8-5 overall. No CCG appearance, let alone a win and likely a bowl game loss to boot. Sorry, this team has to show me they can beat someone, anyone of substance before I give them the benefit of the doubt again. Illinois concerns me greatly and that just shouldn't be a thing.

 
JJHusker1 said:
Before the season began I was at 10-2 regular season and 11-3 or 12-2 overall. Was being Kool-Aid induced brave and predicting CCG win.

Now, after watching the first 4 games, I have to go with 9-3 or 8-4 regular season and 9-4 or 8-5 overall. No CCG appearance, let alone a win and likely a bowl game loss to boot. Sorry, this team has to show me they can beat someone, anyone of substance before I give them the benefit of the doubt again. Illinois concerns me greatly and that just shouldn't be a thing.
Click to expand...
+1 JJHusker1; your post from my heart and I too am a bit concerned about Illinois.

 
"Something" is a singular word. Guess that's where I got it.

"Jack-of-all-trades, master of none" is probably what most critics here are talking about. I get that, but I think it's a bit harsh for an offense that averages 500 yards a game, 5.6 yards a rush and 7.8 yards per passing attempt. Seems the ESPN and BIG 10 network analysts respect this Nebraska O more than a lot of Husker fans.

Sure, I'd love a more consistent, four quarter game. That's really the problem. This isn't a four quarter team. I'm just not convinced the problem is offensive playcalling. It's mental toughness when things don't go as planned.

And if our offense was able to consistently exert its will four four quarters, you'd start to wonder about the opposing DC.

 
True to the Red.......Always said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
I love a good ground game. Every coach loves a good ground game. I want to know that given three downs the Huskers will always get at least 10 yards. But it's not as simple as some folks here want to think. Beck doesn't abandon the running game too quickly. We tend to forget those three and outs where we ran the same rushing plays that had worked in the first half, only to find the defense had adjusted. When the coach of a trailing team runs the ball three times in a row before punting, the fans howl even louder. We have more fumbles than we do interceptions, so that excuse really doesn't play. And when you're down a couple scores in the fourth quarter, an incomplete pass is preferable to a four yard run that lets the clock burn. Passing sets up the run as much as running sets up the pass. Beck's balance is pretty reasonable, but nothing looks good when desperation sets in, and that's a teamwide issue, not a playcalling issue.
Click to expand...
Guy Chamberlin said:
Huskers so far this season:
202 rushing attempts, averaging 5.6 yards per attempt

111 passing attempts, averaging 7.8 yards per attempt.

Five lost fumbles

One interception
Click to expand...
Decent numbers there, and a bit more balanced than a lot of people would think.

I think we are good not great in the run game, and I feel the same way about the passing game. Good not great. Although, I think the passing game upgrades with Armstrong and RK3 at QB.

That aside, I guess my only other goal for this offense is just to take that next step. Become great at something. Establish a part of your offense that you feel like you could impose your will on someone at anytime when needed. I just want that staple, that thing that we fall back in that when other things are failing, we feel like we can always fall back and execute "this" to perfection.

I know this is easier said than done but I felt like we had it at one point. Back when Taylor burst onto the scene our zone read was just unstoppable. Now understandably, that aspect kind of faded when Taylor suffered a few injuries over the last few years. Still, I felt like we never expanded on that zone read enough. It seems we almost put it on the back burner trying to turn Taylor into a passer. We could have taken a lot of pressure off Taylor by using those zone reads with two backs in the back field. Maybe even more use of that "diamond" formation that everyone loved so much. These were neat aspects that our offense clearly could have built upon and learned to execute to perfection. Instead we ran that very periodically til they've almost faded from memory.

The one question that I don't know that can be answered is "what is the direction of this offense"? Is it passing oriented? Is it option? Is it zone read? Is it power running? Or are we really going to try to be all of the above. I hate this multiplicity concept. I think it holds us back from once again being "great" at something. I hope we figure it out soon because I think we have a special one up and coming through the QB ranks.
Click to expand...
You make solid points. I think the bold part is a little misleading to all of us by being a multiple offense. I think it is very difficult to stop since we do have several different running backs that can produce well when we run the ball. We have real good receivers that want the ball and can make plays downfield. I have to admit that the major key component for the style of this offense to be successful and dominating at times, is at the QB position. A QB that is smart and talented with a pass-first skillset. After that is clearly established, he has the ability to be mobile enough for scrambling and keeping the zone read option honest. Let the backs carry the majority of the runs while the QB spreads the ball to his receivers with accuracy. Moving the chains in this offense will happen. Big plays in this multiple style can still happen passing and running. I think it would work and be very difficult to stop. IMHO

 
I think we will know a lot more AFTER the Illinois game. I believe Illinois is one-dimensional, but they have been VERY effective passing the ball and our defense has been porous to both run and pass.

IF our D improves we would win the rest of the games (Mich & PSU are struggling, MSU has no offense). Right now I think the most dangerous games will be NW and Iowa (assuming we look much better againg Illinois).

 
Addison Mode said:
You make solid points. I think the bold part is a little misleading to all of us by being a multiple offense. I think it is very difficult to stop since we do have several different running backs that can produce well when we run the ball. We have real good receivers that want the ball and can make plays downfield. I have to admit that the major key component for the style of this offense to be successful and dominating at times, is at the QB position. A QB that is smart and talented with a pass-first skillset. After that is clearly established, he has the ability to be mobile enough for scrambling and keeping the zone read option honest. Let the backs carry the majority of the runs while the QB spreads the ball to his receivers with accuracy. Moving the chains in this offense will happen. Big plays in this multiple style can still happen passing and running. I think it would work and be very difficult to stop. IMHO
Click to expand...
We are in agreement about the QB position. I think that changes almost everything. If you have a Qb that can execute that multiple offense effectively then so be it. TA might change my view if things. Based on what we've seen though, it has looked like we have been forcing a square peg into a round hole. The offensive line hasn't helped matters though.

An interesting thing to watch Saturday. Does TA make our offensive line look magically better than previously thought? Just something to watch.

 
Man, I really hate to belabor this, but you can't have a team with the #14 rushing offense, the #13 passing efficiency offense, and three different running backs averaging 6 yards or better per carry, and not give a little credit to the offensive line.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
Man, I really hate to belabor this, but you can't have a team with the #14 rushing offense, the #13 passing efficiency offense, and three different running backs averaging 6 yards or better per carry, and not give a little credit to the offensive line.
Click to expand...
With our SOS so far? Nope. You expect that. Now, if we see this happen throughout conference play, yes. And if that's the case, this could be Beck's last year as OC. Enter Frost.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top