RUN THE BALL!!!

Again, your argument forces you to go out to the edges to find an "unbalanced" offense like Mike Leach's pass-heavy offense, or Paul Johnson's run-heavy offense.

It's a choice these coaches made and the focus surely serves the execution of either the running or passing game, but it hasn't made these unbalanced teams elite and the concept is rarely replicated in college football, pretty much blowing your Premise #1 out of the water. If you have to run a "simpler" system because you can only secure uhm "simpler" recruits, then you're accepting mediocrity at face value.

If you're applying that simplistic phrase "they knew what we were going to do and we did it anyway" to those legendary Husker teams, just acknowledge that Nebraska was absolutely loaded with talent on both sides of the ball. Osborne went out and fetched that talent after a few too many games when physical teams knew what we were going to do, and shut us down cold. But thank you for also acknowledging the complexity of the option offense that Osborne ran, although I think it also undermines your "simple" premise. That scheme offered its own recruiting challenges. And Nebraska wasn't at a disadvantage back then. If Nebraska came calling, you were a prize recruit.

Surely you know that the vast majority of college football teams dwell somewhere in the middle. They find time to practice both running and passing because it's part of the game of football, and good teams do both well. Nebraska's problem isn't entirely its offense, but assuming it is I think we can agree that a slightly more accurate quarterback would make both the passing and running game work better. They're not these incredibly rare creatures. As you mention, Alabama wins without superstar passers, just competent leaders and executers. So going to the unbalanced extreme you suggest is a bit of an overreaction.

And I guess you weren't around, but during the Tim Beck and Shawn Watson years, Nebraska regularly ran a 60/40 run pass split and the complaints about balance and "multiple" were exactly the same.

As for your Premise #2: I pretty much agree.

 
Give me an example of a team that consistently ranks in the 25 to 40 range of recruiting rankings that posts a top 20 offense with "balanced" offense.

I was not a fan of Watson's offense, and not even Beck's really. But Beck did seem to be coming around and getting his system into place. Think we would have seen some good stuff with TA as a JR in that system. But that's neither here nor there.

As to "replication or lackthereof" proving something about theories, no one replicated TO's offense either (until Urban figured out that you keep the ball in your playmakers hands after his ND team played NU).

By and large, CFB coaches aren't willing to take risks. So they tend to just follow the herd of lemmings right over the cliff's edge and into mediocrity.

 
cm husker said:
By and large, CFB coaches aren't willing to take risks. So they tend to just follow the herd of lemmings right over the cliff's edge and into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
This statement suggests that you know more about college football than vast majority of people who make a living at it, but it goes a long way in explaining why your posts continue to be both wrong and exhausting.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
cm husker said:
By and large, CFB coaches aren't willing to take risks. So they tend to just follow the herd of lemmings right over the cliff's edge and into mediocrity.
Click to expand...
This statement suggests that you know more about college football than vast majority of people who make a living at it, but it goes a long way in explaining why your posts continue to be both wrong and exhausting.
Click to expand...
Your ad hominem attacks aside, if you don't think college football coaches are risk adverse, then you haven't been paying attention.
Don't conflate risk adversion with stupidity though.

Some coaches are really smart but their line of experience over a 20+ year career means they aren't willing or able to reinvent themselves, even when facts on the ground indicate that they should.

And that's certainly not a condition unique to coaching.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey, the world of business and politics are built upon risk-aversion. I get that.

But there are the dozens of college football coaches who have found success doing the opposite of what you suggest, using logic that continues to elude you.

Can you think of any arguments for NOT running a Mike Leach or Paul Johnson offense that don't involve risk-aversion or lemming-like behavior?

As I recall, you waded into this theory to suggest that scheme trumps talent, thereby placing the onus on Mike Riley and not his players. Your argument got increasingly sticky after that.

And now you are suggesting that some schools like Nebraska will never be able to recruit at an elite level, but might be able to squeeze more from these lesser recruits with an offensive scheme that is less reliant on elite talent. These teams, in turn, will never compete at the highest levels, but might breakthrough on a lower tier every now and then. For some reason this recruiting and talent shortfall doesn't affect our defense, or there's nothing we can do about that anyway.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see facts on the ground indicating that coaches should reinvent themselves in order to embrace schemes that are far from proven.

Your assessment doesn't suggest a return to Osborne's glory years as much as it recommends Nebraska accepting its less-desirable status.

 
Clearly, you aren't following the argument because you continue to misstate and otherwise exaggerate my positions all while declining to answer my direct questions, so I'll save us both a lot of time by refusing to continue it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Guy Chamberlin said:
Hey, the world of business and politics are built upon risk-aversion. I get that.

But there are the dozens of college football coaches who have found success doing the opposite of what you suggest, using logic that continues to elude you.

Can you think of any arguments for NOT running a Mike Leach or Paul Johnson offense that don't involve risk-aversion or lemming-like behavior?

As I recall, you waded into this theory to suggest that scheme trumps talent, thereby placing the onus on Mike Riley and not his players. Your argument got increasingly sticky after that.

And now you are suggesting that some schools like Nebraska will never be able to recruit at an elite level, but might be able to squeeze more from these lesser recruits with an offensive scheme that is less reliant on elite talent. These teams, in turn, will never compete at the highest levels, but might breakthrough on a lower tier every now and then. For some reason this recruiting and talent shortfall doesn't affect our defense, or there's nothing we can do about that anyway.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see facts on the ground indicating that coaches should reinvent themselves in order to embrace schemes that are far from proven.

Your assessment doesn't suggest a return to Osborne's glory years as much as it recommends Nebraska accepting its less-desirable status.
Click to expand...
It sounds like it can be summed up as "I will only accept mediocrity only if you get there in a way that I approve of" and if it is done in any other way, then he is going to relentlessly complain about it even if the complaints don't make much sense at all.

 
cm husker said:
I'm looking for paths out of mediocrity. And following a trail that chases the pipe dream of "balance" won't lead the way.
Click to expand...
It's not a pipe dream. It's not a scheme. It's not even a number. And you don't have to chase it.

It's not called "balance." It's called balance. And you misuse the concept constantly.

I think most of us are "chasing the dream" of a more cohesive offensive line, a better decision-making quarterback, a breakthrough performer at running back and a defense that rediscovers the blackshirt tradition.

It might be closer than you think.

Cheer up.

 
cm husker said:
Clearly, you aren't following the argument because you continue to misstate and otherwise exaggerate my positions all while declining to answer my direct questions, so I'll save us both a lot of time by refusing to continue it.
Click to expand...
Oh, you mean this ridiculously structured direct "question" designed to give you every possible out while proving absolutely nothing?

cm husker said:
Give me an example of a team that consistently ranks in the 25 to 40 range of recruiting rankings that posts a top 20 offense with "balanced" offense.
Click to expand...
I believe I've left dozens of questions and clearly explained counter-arguments on the table that you've avoided.

I've also acknowledged places of agreement.

And one thing we seem to agree on is that this is a spectacular waste of time.

See you in late August.

 
it's fine buddy. You had and may continue to have the last word. We get it. You want a Lane Kiffin type of offense. That's cool. Minds may disagree. No need to continue the discussion.

 
cm husker said:
it's fine buddy. You had and may continue to have the last word. We get it. You want a Lane Kiffin type of offense. That's cool. Minds may disagree. No need to continue the discussion.
Click to expand...
Who is 'we" ?

I thought you left this argument in post #247?

 
cm husker said:
it's fine buddy. You had and may continue to have the last word. We get it. You want a Lane Kiffin type of offense. That's cool. Minds may disagree. No need to continue the discussion.
Click to expand...
Lane Kiffin's offense just won a national championship, I don't see why there is an issue with wanting that?

Why does everyone get all bent out of shape with how our offense is ran? We don't need more runs, we need more efficient runs on offense. If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy. As long as the offense goes, who cares how it goes?

The main thing that is going to drive NUs success this year will be how much the defense improves and can the offense clean up penalties and turnovers? The offense will produce enough to reach the Big Ten title game.

 
cm husker said:
it's fine buddy. You had and may continue to have the last word. We get it. You want a Lane Kiffin type of offense. That's cool. Minds may disagree. No need to continue the discussion.
Click to expand...
You also don't understand the concept of "the last word."

See you in late August.

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