Riley/Langsdorf's Offense is Callahan 2.0

[alwayshusking]

I think this staff has done a better job than Callahan of adapting to personnel overall in year one. The play calling vs Illinois was terrible though given the conditions.

I think the troubling sign is this staff, specifically Langsdorf, really wants to throw the ball. It's in his DNA and he sees the running game as necessary to get the LBs and S to respect it so they can have more success throwing it.

 

[dvdcrr]

I remember some games the Callahan crew would put together a masterful show of plan and play calling, then other weeks it was like a 3 hour purgatory.

 

[dvdcrr]

I find it comical that people use Callahan and Cozgrove as their examples of poor offense and defense when Bill's offense was better than Frank's or Bo's and Bo's defenses put of 7 of the top 10 worst performances in school history. That doesn't mean that Bill/Coz didn't suck but I find it funny that just because TO picked Frank and Bo that they get a pass. When the truth is that all three sucked (with most of the blame going to Frank for putting us in this situation in the first place) and it isn't looking good for this staff at the present time either.

Pelini's 2009 defense was one of the best ever at NU. Better than the Alabama defense of the same year. Bo was inflexible and dogmatic. There were no adjustments. Brutal D when you have the guys to man up. Exposed when you dont. But if the guys rose up like they did in 2008, 2009 that was a defense that would go out and win you the game including scoring for you when the offense couldnt.

 

[Mavric]

I was interested to see what Langsdorf would bring. I figured he'd be more of a passing guy but I'm fine with a better passing offense paired with a strong running game. Through four games, I thought we should have run more but generally liked what I saw, hoping we would find a different mix of running plays that would work to our strengths better.

After this last game and listening to Langsdorf's comments since, I don't think he gets it. He's basically a "throw when I want to, run if I have to" playcaller. I don't have the exact quote in front of me but when asked why they didn't run more right after the game, he responded with something like "I think we did". If you can't watch that game going on and figure out that we would have been MUCH better off to run the ball most of the time, that's pretty bad.

And now he's in full CYA mode to explain his play-calling:

 

[Mavric]

[No message]

 

[Mavric]

So let's look at this.

Plays by drive:

1 - After an incomplete pass, we ran for 7 then ran for 2, punted on 4th & 1

2 - Run for 6, run for 1, incomplete pass on 3rd & 3, punt

3 - Run for 2, Pass for 5, incomplete pass, punt

2nd Quarter

4 - Run for 11, run for 4, incomplete pass, run for 32, incomplete pass, TD run for 19

5 - Incomplete pass, pass for 6, incomplete pass, punt

6 - Run for 5, incomplete pass, run for -3, punt

7 - Started possession with 3:38 in the half on own 21 yard line

So where are all these negative plays early on that he's talking about? There was only one negative run (by TA) in the first half and it didn't come until late in the second quarter. The possession after our best running plays, he called three straight passes and we punted.

He's apparently just making things up to fit how he wants to call the game.

 

[TheSker]

After this last game and listening to Langsdorf's comments since, I don't think he gets it. He's basically a "throw when I want to, run if I have to" playcaller.

Totally agree, and a bad offensive philosophy to lead Nebraska.

 

[Mavric]

At halftime, we were averaging 7.5 yards per running play and 4.9 yards per passing play.

But it was the running game that was struggling in his eyes.

 

[Kernal]

We needed more and better passing the last few years. It was a constant refrain in Husker nation. We had really good recievers who rarely got, or caught, the ball. The QBs' passing was mediocre. We were a run spread team that couldn't spread the field because we couldn't throw the ball very well, so decent teams just loaded up the box and killed our rushing game. But we can't go in the other direction either where we are one-dimensional passing.

Langsdorf says they want to be balanced. I hope that is the truth. It could be a case of them focusing so much on the passing game because that is the area that needed the most work and the area where we have the most talent currently. And it could be a case of our running backs struggling to be consistently productive right now. I hope those are what it is.

I don't think we can say it will always be one way or another right now. There's just too few games to know.

 

[Mavric]

And it could be a case of our running backs struggling to be consistently productive right now. I hope those are what it is.

We are currently #23 in the country in yards per rushing attempt at 5.4. Newby is averaging 5.5, Janovich is at 6.9, Ozigbo is at 8.2. How much more consistent do we have to be?

 

[Kernal]

And it could be a case of our running backs struggling to be consistently productive right now. I hope those are what it is.

We are currently #23 in the country in yards per rushing attempt at 5.4. Newby is averaging 5.5, Janovich is at 6.9, Ozigbo is at 8.2. How much more consistent do we have to be?

Wouldn't you agree that is partly due to us throwing the ball? If we ran more, wouldn't teams commit more to stopping our run game? You know a lot about football, so you know that plays don't exist in isolation; they are in series and set each other up.

 

[Kernal]

At halftime, we were averaging 7.5 yards per running play and 4.9 yards per passing play.

But it was the running game that was struggling in his eyes.

I agree we threw deep too often in the wind against Illinois, and I can only guess as to why that was the gameplan. I suspect it was the avenue the defense was giving us that we would theoretically be best able to capitalize on.

 

[brophog]

And it could be a case of our running backs struggling to be consistently productive right now. I hope those are what it is.

We are currently #23 in the country in yards per rushing attempt at 5.4. Newby is averaging 5.5, Janovich is at 6.9, Ozigbo is at 8.2. How much more consistent do we have to be?

Averages (means) are not good for showing consistency. Ozigbo's rushes are easy to show why: 2, 2, 19, 5, 4, 6, 31, 4, 1.

Only two of his 9 rushes are above the mean, with most of the remainder significantly below.

In actuality, consistency is a poor word to use to differentiate running backs. In general the median rush between backs is usually pretty small, given a healthy sample size. It's the capacity for big runs that separates backs. In this regard, Ozigbo shows promise.

 

[zoogs]

Here's why the hand-wringing about not running enough doesn't make sense to me.

Newby is visibly struggling. He's veteran, a good multipurpose back, but is widely considered to be not a great runner (outside of the showing against USA). He isn't losing his hold on the feature back role for nothing. Cross, who began as the #2, also isn't finding himself losing carries for nothing.

Janovich has broken some huge runs from the fullback position, so that's good. They're clearly trying to feed him the ball.

Ozigbo is just beginning to emerge, and is likely to carve himself an expanded role. When it came time to grind out the game (or try to), they leaned on Jano and Ozigbo.

Then in Tommy you have a QB they weren't going to try to run much at all this year, but he's playing a steady role in the ground game, because he has to.

They're trying to find reliable players, and trying to find ways to get things to work. The running game isn't some explosive feature of the offense that is being muzzled. It's adequate and workable largely through the occasional big gains sprung in an offense that tries to keep the defense watching for a pass. If it's to emerge as a major threat, then those 3 -- Jano, Ozigbo, Newby -- need to build on what they're starting to show and Newby in particular needs to silence his critics.

Really, there is no "run" vs "pass". They are not opposite, competing things. They are complementary parts of the same offense -- one which, Illinois aside, has done a pretty bang-up job establishing itself in Year One of a new system.

 

[San Diego Husker]

I find it comical that people use Callahan and Cozgrove as their examples of poor offense and defense when Bill's offense was better than Frank's or Bo's and Bo's defenses put of 7 of the top 10 worst performances in school history. That doesn't mean that Bill/Coz didn't suck but I find it funny that just because TO picked Frank and Bo that they get a pass. When the truth is that all three sucked (with most of the blame going to Frank for putting us in this situation in the first place) and it isn't looking good for this staff at the present time either.

the current defensive staff's statistics are actually far worse then Cosgrove's. How was that possible? Tommy with his inconsistency and all still makes these offensive coaches look better then they are.

I am not happy that Riley threw Tommy under the bus over that third down play. If he only wanted to run the ball, call a trap play or jet sweep. don't blame the kid for your mistakes as a coach.