The Model for Success at Nebraska: A Strong Physical Running Game

[Guy Chamberlin]

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently.

That describes the WCO in a nutshell.

But there are other inherent traits with the WCO that do not fit the philosophy.

Not really.

I've been a 49ers fan since the Bill Walsh era. A lot was made about the sophistication of the WCO, but the Niners would play smashmouth as long as you let them.

Walsh also loved Osborne players like Craig, Rathman and Jamie Williams because they arrived knowing how to block.

Blocking is good.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

There's a big difference between efficiency being an integral part of your philosophy and simply mentinoning it a few times at a press conference.

Apparently there's also a difference between designing a more efficient gameplan, and convincing your Quarterback not to improvise something more dramatic.

Both of those would be part of TO's philosophy.

They're part of every coach's philosophy.

Easier said than done.

 

[The Duke]

I've been a 49ers fan since the Bill Walsh era. A lot was made about the sophistication of the WCO, but the Niners would play smashmouth as long as you let them.

Walsh also loved Osborne players like Craig, Rathman and Jamie Williams because they arrived knowing how to block.

Blocking is good.

Nice to find another 49ers fan on the board!

 

[NUinID]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

There's a big difference between efficiency being an integral part of your philosophy and simply mentinoning it a few times at a press conference.

Apparently there's also a difference between designing a more efficient gameplan, and convincing your Quarterback not to improvise something more dramatic.

Both of those would be part of TO's philosophy.

So let me get this straight, you think MR is only playing lip service to being efficient in the passing game? You think it is not part of the game plan? That right there tells me you don't know a lot about coaching football.

 

[GBRedneck]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

There's a big difference between efficiency being an integral part of your philosophy and simply mentinoning it a few times at a press conference.

Apparently there's also a difference between designing a more efficient gameplan, and convincing your Quarterback not to improvise something more dramatic.

Both of those would be part of TO's philosophy.

So let me get this straight, you think MR is only playing lip service to being efficient in the passing game? You think it is not part of the game plan? That right there tells me you don't know a lot about coaching football.

It was part of TO's philosophy. It was drilled into everybody. They all lived it. And it showed.

Maybe Riley wants to be efficient in the passing game. But whatever he's doing to instill that mindset isn't working.

 

[The Dude]

Even when Andrew Luck was throwing 32 times per game at Stanford, they were still running 40 times per game and and using the run to set up the pass.

They had one of the best college QBs maybe ever and still determined it was best to take the pressure of him and use the running game to make life easier for him.

Seems like a sound philosophy.

I don't know about this passing to set up the run business. Especially in gusting winds with a QB that is struggling mightily.

It might work, but so far I haven't seen anything to sway me so far.

 

[NUinID]

Nebraska is unique. TO fully took advantage of the unique attributes of Nebraska with his system. A WCO could work if all the stars aligned perfectly, but you're swimming upstream trying to implement that type of offense. It doesn't fit in well with TO's entire philosophy.

Nebraska football as we know it began when Bob Devaney rescued Nebraska from the "three yards and a cloud of dust" offense of Bill Jennings. Devaney's first play as coach in 1962 was a forward pass, and Memorial Stadium gave it a standing ovation.

TO helped Bob Devaney win Nebraska's first two national championships by introducing MORE passing and indeed more complicated offensive sets to the previously conservative run-heavy scheme.

As HC, it took Tom a full nine seasons before he settled into the power option game we remember. It took him 20 years and a perfect set of recruits on both offense and defense to create the 1990s powerhouses we remember -- and to shut up Tom's critics.

Tom Osborne is on record as saying that the run-happy offense he once perfected probably wouldn't work in today's game. So there's that.

It is increasingly hard to recruit top tier players for a scheme that doesn't prepare them for the NFL.

Who is the dream candidate you'd choose to replace Riley? Have you vetted his run/pass ratio? If Riley is pass-happy, then so is everyone in college football.

And let me get this straight: you celebrate the appearance of Andy Janovich and cheer the revival of the fullback trap, but withhold all credit for the coach who pulled it out of the mothballs and continues to run it?

I've asked this on two other threads and gotten no answer:

Assuming he was available (he wasn't) would you have grabbed Paul Johnson and his run-first offense for Nebraska in a heartbeat?

Would it change your mind that Johnson is currently 2 - 4 at Georgia Tech, with worse losing margins than Mike Riley at Nebraska?

Did you actually watch the video in the OP? It's not about running versus passing. It's about doing them efficiently. There are a lot of other core concepts in the philosophy that have nothing to do with the brand of offense you run.

As for recruiting, you can make a case that it's easier to recruit to a one-off offense that utilizes different types of players since you're not competing against every other team for the standard prototype players.

As to Johnson, he never excited me. I think he's a pretty good x and os coach, but not a great motivator.

If you watched MR presser yesterday he discussed this very thing. Getting more efficient in the passing game which would in turn make the running game better. I love power running, but the days of lining up and only attempting 12-15 passes a game are most likely over if you really want to be competitive. Besides TO always said that his option game was like a passing element to the game. Even your best power run teams are going to throw the ball at least 25x a game.

There's a big difference between efficiency being an integral part of your philosophy and simply mentinoning it a few times at a press conference.

Apparently there's also a difference between designing a more efficient gameplan, and convincing your Quarterback not to improvise something more dramatic.

Both of those would be part of TO's philosophy.

So let me get this straight, you think MR is only playing lip service to being efficient in the passing game? You think it is not part of the game plan? That right there tells me you don't know a lot about coaching football.

It was part of TO's philosophy. It was drilled into everybody. They all lived it. And it showed.

Maybe Riley wants to be efficient in the passing game. But whatever he's doing to instill that mindset isn't working.

Yeah, I guess your are right, comparing someone who has been at a place for 9 months and to someone at the same place for 25 years make a difference. He should have had the mideset instilled in these players by the second or third spring practice.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Even when Andrew Luck was throwing 32 times per game at Stanford, they were still running 40 times per game and and using the run to set up the pass.

They had one of the best college QBs maybe ever and still determined it was best to take the pressure of him and use the running game to make life easier for him.

Seems like a sound philosophy.

I don't know about this passing to set up the run business. Especially in gusting winds with a QB that is struggling mightily.

It might work, but so far I haven't seen anything to sway me so far.

Stanford was the perfect example of passing to set up the run, under both Harbaugh and Shaw. Defenses had to respect the run and the pass, and Stanford took what each defense was willing to give.

I think they actually preferred the run, because like most coaches you like a grinding ball control offense, especially in the second half. But when team's committed to stopping the run, a Luck or Hogan could shred them in the passing game. They might have had a 50/50 split over the course of a season, but each game had its own ratio as dictated by the defense.

A quarterback who completes 65% of his passes makes a helluva difference in a passing offense. Also, Stanford has been recruiting top notch offensive linemen for several years now. It's a priority.

Stanford is a great model, but I don't think even they are as run-heavy as some here are recommending.

Also, Stanford's ratio isn't far off from what Riley has been running. Efficiency is certainly an issue. The rogue side of Tommy Armstrong is definitely skewing those numbers.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I've been a 49ers fan since the Bill Walsh era. A lot was made about the sophistication of the WCO, but the Niners would play smashmouth as long as you let them.

Walsh also loved Osborne players like Craig, Rathman and Jamie Williams because they arrived knowing how to block.

Blocking is good.

Nice to find another 49ers fan on the board!

Cheers!

The Niners are certainly making the Huskers look functional this year.

 

[GOAT]

Sorry, but I'm just not a fan of this West Coast crap. It's been totally ineffective, under both Callahan and Riley. I'd rather have a strong running game that sets up high-completion passes and play-action, instead of tossing it all over the place. One thing in particular I can't stand are all of the screen passes. Rarely do they work and more often than not we lose yardage. But since we're stuck with this scheme for the time being... POB can't get here soon enough.

 

[dvdcrr]

Fire Pelini!

Sorry guys, Ive been gone a few months what'd I miss!

 

[dvdcrr]

That was an attempt at humor, dont read too much into it.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

That was an attempt at humor, dont read too much into it.

I grinned.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Sorry, but I'm just not a fan of this West Coast crap. It's been totally ineffective, under both Callahan and Riley. I'd rather have a strong running game that sets up high-completion passes and play-action, instead of tossing it all over the place. One thing in particular I can't stand are all of the screen passes. Rarely do they work and more often than not we lose yardage. But since we're stuck with this scheme for the time being... POB can't get here soon enough.

Tom Osborne was a big fan of the slow developing screen pass. I wasn't a big fan of it back then myself, but it's not a directive of the WCO, just another weapon used by most teams in football. Really popular in the NFL right now.

Last year the common complaint was that we didn't do enough safe screen passes to get the RBs in open space.

Some Husker fans seem to think that any offense that passes a lot is a West Coast Offense. That's not it at all. The whole idea of the WCO was to use passing, running, and all legal offensive weapons in high percentage plays that prevented defenses from keying on any one element or player. The WCO was a "dink and dunk" offense, not a deep passing offense. It led to the high completion percentage you now see throughout football. Although not so much at Nebraska.

I don't think Riley is running a WCO offense per se. If he is, so is almost every other coach in the NCAA.

 

[Scratchtown]

Jano scored on a dive last week. That wasn't trap.

No guard pulled on the play