Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[olddominionhusker]

The blowouts definitely needed to get fixed. No doubt. They were unacceptable mainly because I think they ended up beating the team twice on occasion (e.g., losing to Minnesota after the wisky game).

I just didn't see them as inevitable if we'd stayed the course with the last staff.

Just like there's nothing inevitable about this staff, good or bad.

Wait....
Haven't you proclaimed that this staff will never be successful here?

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

OK....understand.
In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

Yes....That is how I understand his stance.
However, what happens if POB is as good as advertised (or we get Gebia next year and he is)and we get 3-4 really good receivers this year and next (to add to what we already have)? What if our line keeps improving in pass pro?

All of those things are possible. THEN, a more passing offense could work here.

This is what bothers me about Riley's offense. The team requires SO MANY good/great players at all these spots that it makes recruiting and player development the biggest thing to make the offense work.
Your basically saying "we need 11 great players to be great on offense". Is that realistic?

Again, the power running game of Tom Osborne and the high degree of discipline and execution option football required were probably more complicated and talent reliant than most offenses run today.

You are talking about different type of talent. The power running game of TO required o-linemen who could work as a unit and focus on run-blocking, which is generally easier than pass blocking. When I think run-blocking, it's being more physical dominant than the guy across from you. They don't require o-linemen to be tall with long arms and good feet which pass blocking requires. I'm not saying the run blocking doesn't require good footwork, but it's a different type of footwork.
The running back is an important position in order to gain consistent yardage and break big plays. The QB position really needs to be smart with the football, and make quick decisions in the play-action passing game.

Other than that, the WR position relies more on having more space to get open because there are fewer defender in pass coverage. The WR position needs to be a solid blocker and good hands, but not necessarily burner speed. The tight end position is a luxury. When there is a great tight end, that can cover up for lack of talent at WR.

I agree with you. I think that while both systems obviously require certain types of players, getting marquee players for Riley's type of offense is harder at a place like Nebraska. To take it one step further, I think that Bankers defensive system is also very talent dependent. The system is similar to what MSU runs and you could see their drop off defensively this year without an elite secondary.Now, there is certainly a bigger pool to pick from as far as players who will fit Riley's system, but the competition for those players is also much stiffer. With a more power run/option focused system the competition from other programs is going to be much less and Nebraska would arguably be the biggest fish in that recruiting pond along with Ga Tech.

At the end of the day though Riley is what we have so I just hope he can find something that works for the program. Although every game this year had it's share of head scratching play calls, I do think that after Purdue the staff did a much better job calling games. Perfect? Not by a long shot. But I did see improvement and some flexibility. Enough to be at least curious about the direction next year and perhaps a little more hopeful

One thing that is missing from this conversation.
To run the power run/option attack and be extremely successful at it, you have to have a staff that isn't just committed to run it but are absolute masters at running it.

Those coaches are far and few between anymore.

But not extinct. The guy from Navy comes to mind. Troy Calhoun as well although his system is a bit more diverse.
I agree though that Riley trying to instill that system would be silly. It's not what he is good at.

Like many here, I would like to see a system like Stanford here. I think that would be a system that we could recruit for long term and be successful

Hmmmmm....
Stanford has in this recruiting class, the #5 pro style QB, The #1 WR in the state of CA, The #2 TE in the nation, The #18 OT in the nation...etc.

How are they recruiting different types of players than we are trying to get?

.
I never said they were. I was talking about their system not their players. You can recruit the same type of players but in a less pass happy wide open variant, the individual talent doesn't necessarily have to be as great at those positions. We have good RB right now. We have great talent at receiver. But QB is not suited to an air raid offense and OLine is mediocre all around. Commitment to a power run game with an efficient passing attack is our best offensive plan IMO. We can't put too much pressure on any one aspect of the offense with our current group. In my opinion, too often this staff placed too much pressure on our passing attack which was ill suited to deal with it. I'm not suggesting a switch to triple option, I hope that's clear. I just don't care for DL defeatist attitude with regard to the run game which is how I interpret his comments.

Ok....I was in a discussion earlier where some were claiming we can't recruit good pro style QBs and receivers so we need to scrap this system and go to a system more like what we used to run where the QB is less reliant on being able to pass accurately.
Well, the Stanford offense still requires a good accurate passer and good receivers. If not, why would they be recruiting that type of player?

What I see you saying compared to what we ran this year, is....if we had very similar plays in the play book but just ran the ball more like 60-40 instead of 50-50.....we would be more successful. (Stanford ran the ball 65.7% of the time last year) However, like in the Iowa game, most of the game they were right at about a 50-50 split.

Yes that's accurate. I think a run bias would be better for this team as currently constructed and as more pieces fall into place you can be more flexible when the opportunity presents itself.

I've said before I'm not a traditionalist. I don't care if we are 70-30 pass if we win games. I'm not married to any style philosophically as long as it ultimately gets w's

 

[cm husker]

The blowouts definitely needed to get fixed. No doubt. They were unacceptable mainly because I think they ended up beating the team twice on occasion (e.g., losing to Minnesota after the wisky game).

I just didn't see them as inevitable if we'd stayed the course with the last staff.

Just like there's nothing inevitable about this staff, good or bad.

Wait....
Haven't you proclaimed that this staff will never be successful here?

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

OK....understand.
In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

That's correct.

I'll expand a little more on my thoughts/philosophy on "being a fan."

I try not to get too wrapped up in the wins and losses, and especially not the types of wins and losses. I think this is mainly because, being in my 30s now, my formative years were in the 80s and early 90s, just before "The Run." I grew up reading the "voices from the grandstands" and getting frustrated when people would attack Osborne for his losses and the quality (or supposed lack thereof) of his wins. When I look at what NU was doing relative to other teams with similar resources, I recognized he was squeezing more results out of his circumstances than I thought any other coach would. I also started to really believe in the "Nebraska Way," which was (to me) based on loyalty, continuity and camaraderie. I thought TO really instilled a culture of "Program, Teammate, Self" and I think it was reflected in the systems we ran on the field and the notion that "once a Husker, always a Husker" whether you were a star All American or a walkon scout team contributor. Later, playing on an OL and serving in the military, the valuing selflessness and always having your buddy's back, even over your own interest (unless it jeopardized the team or the mission), was really reinforced.

I truly always felt that I cheered for Nebraska because they had my favorite football staff, not just because I was born and raised there.

Today, I try to take the same perspective. I don't cheer for jerseys, team colors or the land where a university is situated. I cheer for the people who I want to see succeed, even if they come up short. It's why I have other "favorite" teams besides my alma mater and Nebraska.

I seek two main qualities in a staff

I. Football style and their approach/perspective on coaching. First, and foremost, a staff that I'm a fan of will always put the student-athlete's interests above winning (and everything else). Second, I love watching hard-nosed, run oriented football that employs a mobile QB, preferably with the option as a foundational component of the offense. I find this to be easily the most exciting (and difficult to defend) type of offense. Defensively, I'm less specific in what I'd like to see, but I do want to see a coordinator who has the ability to leverage his best athletes by putting them in position to be playmakers. College football, on both sides of the ball, is really about big plays. Offenses that attempt to "dink and dunk" their way down the field are going to struggle because 9+ play drive execution is tough for many college teams to perform consistently. You need to have a system that picks up yards in chunks, which is why I like the idea of running, getting a head of the sticks and then taking shots down field in the play action passing game. Defensively, I like a system that makes teams work horizontally, in the pass or run game, in order to move the ball because that often extends their drives, leading to more opportunities for miscues.

II. Overall Persona. This is far less important to me than the first point, but I always like Osborne's, Solich's and guys like Turner Gill's persona. I like to root for coaches I perceive to be good people (honest, driven, high integrity guys). Often,if you're meeting my expectations with respect to treating your players, you're one of these guys, but I did like TO's unflappable persona, while not losing that fierce competitive fire that he had (see, staring down that dumb buffalo at CU). I wanted TO to win and achieve vindication.

As it applies to the last three NU coaches, I'll be brief:

1. I never liked Callahan. I thought it was a terrible, desperation hire but another guy I didn't like. My initial dislike/distrust was based on the many stories about his treatment and relationship with his players at Oakland and previously. When he basically said "I'm going to install my system, regardless of the players on hand" and then later "just one game, one season," I realized he didn't remotely "get" college football and what it's about for kids with a limited amount of career and opportunities left. Guys like Pilkington leaving with a year of eligibility and stories about transfers not even getting a chance to talk to the HC were very disturbing to me. Obviously, I thought his offensive system was atrocious in general and not at all suited for Nebraska specifically. I was very skeptical of his recruiting tactics (and employment of guys like John Blake). I'm thankful he was fired and thought NU was lucky to get out of his tenure with only a poor on the field record.

2. I liked Bo mainly because he had TO's endorsement. I'm not big on hiring defensive coordinators as HC's at the college level, but I was good with it because I truly believe that Pelini is among the top defensive minds in CFB today. I also thought he was smart in his transition, maybe in coordination/under direction from Osborne. I think Bo personifies a "players first" mentality. Some people saw that as foster an "us against the world mentality" but I always thought that was way overblown. By many accounts, one could have said the same thing about the '95 Huskers when they felt they were under unfair fire by the media. I thought Bo had some real promise as an HC, I thought we were learning and improving/developing relationships in recruiting and that we were on the right track with changes to the offense. I think NU should have stayed the course with him. I was never ever offended by his on the field behavior (because I always understood his interest was in his players, who have almost uniformly expressed love for him as an assistant coach and HC), and definitely was not offended by, and actually agreed with, his sentiments on Tape Gate #1. I really wish TO had stayed on as AD to protect Bo like Bob protected him before, because similarly, I think Bo had more upside than downside going forward (and strategically, even if he failed, he could have been fired in year 9 or 10 and Frost or another guy could have been effectively identified and brought. I could go into more detail, but I'll leave it at that.

3. I was not a fan of firing Bo, but I'm trying to give Riley a fair chance to prove himself. I'll admit that my dislike of Perlman, who continues to fumble in his dealings with Nebraska football and improperly overstepping his areas of expertise, has made that a little tougher, but I still want what is best for these players. I really like Riley's overall perspective on coaching and player relationships. I think he gets an A+ in that regard, based on what I've seen and heard so far. I'm not at all a fan of the system he's used throughout his career and I'm skeptical about whether he has the ability to organize, motivate and execute a championship level season, but I'll give him some time to prove it one way or the other (if for no other reason than NU has no viable alternatives at this point and I don't want Perlman/Eichorst making another coaching decision). I generally like his on field and media persona, though for all the comparisons to TO, I don't know that I see that hardened competitive streak in Riley (but that's hard to observe from TV). I will say, looking at some of his early years, he had clips where he got into players and refs (throwing headsets, for example), but that seems to be gone. I don't know if the competitiveness is still there, but he's tempered the outward expressions, or if he's lost some of that fire over the years (hard to maintain that championship mentality when you consistently register .500 or worse seasons). I also have concerns that he's never really been a part of meaningful championships at the college or NFL level, even as an assistant.

My overarching concern for NU at this point is that we don't really have a good plan over the next 10 years (unlike what I thought we had under Solich and Pelini). If Riley does great, he probably still retires in 8 to 10 years. If he does terribly, he probably is fired by 2018. In either event, NU is left scrambling/rebuilding, and a program like NU can't afford that level of discontinuity. That's why I really did not like the Perlman/Eichorst move, which I think was mainly over personal issues that professionals should have been able to sort out without hurting the Program.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Good post.

I can't disagree with that much. However, like I have said, I supported Bo just like you for every minute of his career here up until that Wisconsin game. What leaves me scratching my head is you loving TOs persona and having that much respect for him (which I agree) but then you also love Bo who is so opposite of TO in how he handles people that it's inconceivable that they can be lumped together.

TO actually had to have closed door meetings with Bo because he didn't like his actions and Bo never listened and changed how he was acting and treating people.

What I gather from your paragraph about Riley is that your biggest beef with him (other than not liking his offense) is that you didn't agree with firing Bo.

Bo is gone. No matter if you agreed with it or not, he isn't coming back. So, why should that have any part in your feelings for the program now or the coaching staff?

 

[cm husker]

I don't love Bo. I liked a lot of things about him and what I thought was his potential to grow as an HC. But I didn't love him or even consider him one of the top 10 coaches in the country.

I'm disagree wholeheartedly with your assertion that Bo ignored TO. TO has actually said just the opposite, too.

My only "beef" with Riley is that he's an unproven head coach who had run a system I don't think fits at Nebraska. My feelings about Riley have nothing to do with Bo. But if Riley gets to .700+ and wins the west a few times, I really despise the thought of some around huskerdom crooning that Perlman and Eichorst made such a great hire. That will be highly annoying. But I can deal with that if the players are having a good experience.

 

[olddominionhusker]

I agree with a lot that you wrote there CM. I agree with you on Riley for sure. Not so much on BO though. Bo lost my support the year before he was eventually canned. It wasn't so much his blow ups personally, it was the fact that the team would have these horrendous blow outs and he couldn't seem to regain any control or composure while it was going on. Ultimately it was the on field product I became disenchanted with.

I think 2009 was the last time I felt really proud of the Nebraska football team. (On the field of course. Off the field we have had a lot of great kids since then and the program has done some good things).

 

[cm husker]

CM,

I have noticed a genuine attempt to up the quality and objectivity of your posts. It's appreciated. Honestly.

But some still have lingering memories -- some going back only a few posts -- that you believed a Pelini coached team would have won 11, maybe 12 games this season (despite never having done so before) and that we shouldn't expect Riley to do better than .500, because that's what his resume says. Your positions on talent and recruiting seem a bit flexible, based on their ability to blame Mike Riley.

Thanks. Honestly, the only thing that really gets me fired up is when people start blaming players and questioning work ethic/integrity in defense of this poor season. I think that's pretty much died down in the wake of the bowl game, so I have less of a need to "attack" a career .500 coach when people who defend him claim his sub .500 record this year was mainly the fault of the players (specifically, a QB and anyone who didn't "buy-in"). That stuff pisses me off intensely, so that probably shows through in those posts.

I'm not sure how my positions on talent have been inconsistent... I've consistently said that this roster had enough talent to realistically win 10 regular season games against this schedule, and maybe more if things broke right. I saw 8 wins as an absolute floor, below which, I would have blamed whatever coach was here for the poor results.

As far as recruiting goes, I've always said the same thing: Solich, Callahan, Pelini and now Riley (and even TO for many of his years here) all could recruit about the same level of talent year in and year out. Maybe there was some play on the margins or with grabbing a great talent (e.g., Suh, Lavonte David, Ameer, et al.), but generally, the talent level across NU rosters over most years is about the same, especially since 2001 or so. I don't anticipate Riley and his staff to somehow magically outpace historic recruiting trends, especially with the current restrictions in place (and despite the 3x investment that's gone into recruiting resources recently).

That's why I've always said: if Riley can't win 9+ games with the level of talent he has on hand today, then he's never going to win 12+ games with a marginal recruiting upgrade. Now, we can write off this year as a fluke, but when you look at his career record, that's harder to do than say a 7-7 season by a lifelong Husker who was the fastest to 40 wins or whatever previous to that season.

 

[cm husker]

I think that it's important to remember that under Bo, we had games where NU maintained composure, fought back and got W's. NU came back to win at least 6 games when down in the second half between 2012 and 2014. That takes composure. For another example, NU only blew 3 4th quarter leads in 7 years under Pelini (that's a pretty astounding stat, especially considering that NU blew 4 year year alone). It wasn't all just meltdowns.

It wasn't peaches and ice cream all of the time, no doubt, but if we don't fully recognize and appreciate what Bo was able to maintain as a coach, I think we are going to be on the "fire and hire" coaching carousel for a long time.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I appreciate those moments and loved every single one of them.

Now, it's time to move on.

 

[Dansker]

I think that it's important to remember that under Bo, we had games where NU maintained composure, fought back and got W's. NU came back to win at least 6 games when down in the second half between 2012 and 2014. That takes composure. For another example, NU only blew 3 4th quarter leads in 7 years under Pelini (that's a pretty astounding stat, especially considering that NU blew 4 year year alone). It wasn't all just meltdowns.

It wasn't peaches and ice cream all of the time, no doubt, but if we don't fully recognize and appreciate what Bo was able to maintain as a coach, I think we are going to be on the "fire and hire" coaching carousel for a long time.

Disagree, 100% it was always about the meltdowns, the blowouts, the divide with media and fans. He was a national embarrassment to the football program. We don't need to recognize or appreciate anything about Bo Pelini. He was a bad representative for this great state and the football team, period. He deserved to be let go in fact, we were a year late in the divorce. This Riley regime is nothing but a test of the waters just like any hire. We don't know if it will succeed or not but the odds are against them. If it doesn't work out, we'll do what other teams do and that's move on to the next one.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I think that it's important to remember that under Bo, we had games where NU maintained composure, fought back and got W's. NU came back to win at least 6 games when down in the second half between 2012 and 2014. That takes composure. For another example, NU only blew 3 4th quarter leads in 7 years under Pelini (that's a pretty astounding stat, especially considering that NU blew 4 year year alone). It wasn't all just meltdowns.

It wasn't peaches and ice cream all of the time, no doubt, but if we don't fully recognize and appreciate what Bo was able to maintain as a coach, I think we are going to be on the "fire and hire" coaching carousel for a long time.

Disagree, 100% it was always about the meltdowns, the blowouts, the divide with media and fans. He was a national embarrassment to the football program. We don't need to recognize or appreciate anything about Bo Pelini. He was a bad representative for this great state and the football team, period. He deserved to be let go in fact, we were a year late in the divorce. This Riley regime is nothing but a test of the waters just like any hire. We don't know if it will succeed or not but the odds are against them. If it doesn't work out, we'll do what other teams do and that's move on to the next one.

Pretty much agree.

 

[cm husker]

I appreciate those moments and loved every single one of them.

Now, it's time to move on.

I'm not saying we should linger on Pelini. I'm saying that, similar to lessons we should have learned after the Solich/Callahan debacle, we as a fanbase need to understand the value of what we have in a coach. That means not writing accomplishments off with "anyone could do that here" arguments and dismissing concerns with the litany of excuses we saw in '04 and '05 (no buy-in, no talent, new system, etc etc etc).

I've said before: one of my big fears is that Riley gets NU back to 9/10 wins a season and we go ahead and fire him anyway. To me, that would push NU right off the precipice of respectability, on which we'd be perched at .700+, and into a crevasse of obscurity that I doubt the program would recover from.

The line between Nebraska and the programs in its bordering states isn't nearly as wide as we've convinced ourselves that it is.

Needs some examples of cautionary tales? Look at Maryland, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Minnesota, Pittsburgh and heck, even Texas, Penn St and Miami, for teams that won an AP national championship after 1960 and are devoid of any championships in recent years.

Winning conference championships is much more difficult than is appreciated, especially in today's format of championship games.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I appreciate those moments and loved every single one of them.

Now, it's time to move on.

I'm not saying we should linger on Pelini.

Then why are we?

Riley is our coach now.

You say one of your biggest fears is that he will get us back to 9-10 wins and then we will fire him. That comment strikes me as interesting.

So....are you personally hoping he never gets to 9-10 wins so that doesn't happen? OR, do you personally hope he gets to 9-10 wins, we keep him and he builds a program that can go above and beyond that?

If it is the latter, isn't getting behind him fully and supporting him fully the best way to prevent the former from happening?

 

[Spooky Tooth]

I appreciate those moments and loved every single one of them.

Now, it's time to move on.

I'm not saying we should linger on Pelini. I'm saying that, similar to lessons we should have learned after the Solich/Callahan debacle, we as a fanbase need to understand the value of what we have in a coach. That means not writing accomplishments off with "anyone could do that here" arguments and dismissing concerns with the litany of excuses we saw in '04 and '05 (no buy-in, no talent, new system, etc etc etc).

I've said before: one of my big fears is that Riley gets NU back to 9/10 wins a season and we go ahead and fire him anyway. To me, that would push NU right off the precipice of respectability, on which we'd be perched at .700+, and into a crevasse of obscurity that I doubt the program would recover from.

The line between Nebraska and the programs in its bordering states isn't nearly as wide as we've convinced ourselves that it is.

Needs some examples of cautionary tales? Look at Maryland, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Minnesota, Pittsburgh and heck, even Texas, Penn St and Miami, for teams that won an AP national championship after 1960 and are devoid of any championships in recent years.

Winning conference championships is much more difficult than is appreciated, especially in today's format of championship games.

I largely disagree with the premise that Bo did not preside over epic meltdowns, particularly and indisputably his own. His antics caused cameras to be on him a disproportionate amount of time during games. Having said that, your post is a good one. You lay out reasons for what you believe, and while we can argue around the edges I appreciate the thought you put into it.

 

[cm husker]

I appreciate those moments and loved every single one of them.

Now, it's time to move on.

I'm not saying we should linger on Pelini.

Then why are we?

Riley is our coach now.

You say one of your biggest fears is that he will get us back to 9-10 wins and then we will fire him. That comment strikes me as interesting.

So....are you personally hoping he never gets to 9-10 wins so that doesn't happen? OR, do you personally hope he gets to 9-10 wins, we keep him and he builds a program that can go above and beyond that?

If it is the latter, isn't getting behind him fully and supporting him fully the best way to prevent the former from happening?

Not to be trite, but learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it.

Let me ask you this question: Imagine NU compiles an identical record to Bo's last 6 years over the next 6 years, but Riley is on the sideline and super duper nice, as he's displayed himself to be:

Fire him or don't fire him at the end of that 6th year?

 

[Dansker]

I appreciate those moments and loved every single one of them.

Now, it's time to move on.

I'm not saying we should linger on Pelini.

Then why are we?

Riley is our coach now.

You say one of your biggest fears is that he will get us back to 9-10 wins and then we will fire him. That comment strikes me as interesting.

So....are you personally hoping he never gets to 9-10 wins so that doesn't happen? OR, do you personally hope he gets to 9-10 wins, we keep him and he builds a program that can go above and beyond that?

If it is the latter, isn't getting behind him fully and supporting him fully the best way to prevent the former from happening?

Not to be trite, but learn from the past or be doomed to repeat it.

Let me ask you this question: Imagine NU compiles an identical record to Bo's last 6 years over the next 6 years, but Riley is on the sideline and super duper nice, as he's displayed himself to be:

Fire him or don't fire him at the end of that 6th year?

This is a hypothetical question that really, who can answer without assuming anything? Mike Riley is not Bo Pelini. The football program doesn't have to worry about becoming a national punchline by way of sideline meltdowns and leaked audio tapes but, they do have to worry about what kind of success we'll have in the Riley era on the football field. This is what you want. The only thing to learn from the past is that we made a dubious mistake in not terminating Pelini when he all but begged for his dismissal in 2013.