But isn't what you're saying (and you're not wrong) true of any offense we run, no matter what it is, who we have, etc? It is extremely unlikely that we ever have a coach the equivalent of Osborne, or the advantages we had with Epley as S&C Coach, etc. So what you're saying isn't exactly a knock against the run-first offense, it's a knock against any offense, isn't it? Wouldn't the disadvantages of not being in the 90s be the same no matter what offense we run?
And further, wouldn't we have even greater disadvantages today trying to run the same offense everyone else is running, thus competing for the same players in recruiting? The genius of Osborne wasn't only in his game-day scheming, it was also because he knew that he could corner the market on Option players since everyone else was recruiting to a pro-style offense. So if we ran a different offense (not necessarily the Option, but any somewhat unique offense), wouldn't that give us an advantage?
Yes, it is. But the simple point I am making is that we do not have the personnel to go back to that old grind it out style.
The biggest thing that will be getting lost this year is the complete lack of experience we have across the board on our line. For example, of our projected 3 deep on the line, we have a total of 36 starts between those guys. Those 36 starts are between 3 guys, and only 1 of which (Caputo) is pretty assured of his starting spot. Sirles and Marcel will both be battling for their spots.
Combine that complete inexperience with an offensive line coach who has never been known for putting our quality offensive lines, and would anyone be confident in us going back to a complete grind it out style?
I know adding guys like Stai and Garrison are supposed to help - but to me that is only patching a problem than fixing the root of a problem. If Cotton needs that much help, then why not just hire one quality OL coach and be done with the issue instead of allowing him to continue on staff? But I digress.
There was someone who did a great breakdown of spread-option offenses and their balance as compared to ours. The only successful team in recent history that was even close to running as much as we did last year was Florida under Tebow. I need to find that because it would be really relevant.
But I personally do not care how we run our offense, from the gun or under center. The only thing I want is balance, the ability to make teams respect us either running or throwing. And right now, we only have one of those we can do, and teams showed a very good ability at loading the box to stop us from doing that. That goes back to it being a different day and age than in the 90's and how we cannot focus going hard in one direction with our offense.
About recruiting disadvantages - you are going to limit yourself even further by going to a grind it out scheme. Not many players, especially top players, are looking to be put into an offense that will not showcase them for the next level. The simple reason being is that even if they shine, they still have those questions about how they will adapt going to a pro-style offense. So going to a straight running style takes your pool of who you can recruit and dwindles it down to a select bunch. Even more, the group of HS and its players who play in a more modern offense is
MUCH deeper than it is for a power offense.
I mean, even in Nebraska, how many HS teams have gone away from the power football type and into a more traditional approach to football?
So while you think it may be making our recruiting more difficult, it really is not, at all.
Wasn't Tebow 19 or 20 when he hoisted his first Heisman? Wasn't McCoy 19-20 and a redishirt freshman when he broke the passing records for a QB to lead Texas to a #13 ranking, that was broken by Sam Bradford the next season at 19 or 20 winning the Big12 Championship?
