This guy gets "it" when it comes to what NU needs on O.......
- Thread starter lo country
- Start date
NUpolo8
Banned
It's not my favorite,but I'd go for it. I don't think it's a coincidence Bo had his best years when he was around.
Last edited by a moderator:
Number12
Three-Star Recruit
I don't think people have a problem with Bo because he didn't have head coach experience. Plenty of coordinators turn into good head coaches. Bo deserved a shot and got one. It's what he did after that shot that most people have issues with, not that he got hired in the first place. At least that's my opinion.
EmeraldIngot
Five-Star Recruit
Yes and no. A zone blocking running game can use the whole line flowing in one direction and blocking whoever tries to get past them in their 'zone', but it's more than that. Most pass blocking is zone blocking. Not all, but most. Power football uses assignment blocking. When a guard pulls and a FB leads through an assigned hole, usually the FB blocks the MLB, and the pulling guard chips the DT as needed and moves on to the OLB on the side the play is going. This hopefully springs the RB into the secondary for a big gain. Sometimes, the backside TE can take the backside OLB before moving on to a safety. Every man in that play has an assignment, he has one guy he has to block. If every man makes his block, the RB is one on one with a safety. Wisconsin used this to perfection to destroy us, which is why Gerry or Cooper missing a tackle lead to those big runs.
Zone blocking doesn't use any set assignments. No hat on hat blocking. Basically, each man blocks the closest man to his zone, and is sometimes told to block and release to block someone else. It's more fluid and doesn't require complex adjustments to maintain assignment integrity, but requires more skill and a good amount of intuition from each individual. Needless to say, I much prefer assignment blocking in the run game. Beck has, however, done some good things with zone blocking early on in the season. A bunch of AA's big run were because he found the perfect cutback lane in a zone blocking play. Needless to say, it requires incredibly talented players in all position to be truly effective. Our poor line play is a result of good, but not great, o-linemen being asked to play way above their skill levels all game.
Stumpy1
All-American
I hope a majority of you that want Frost as a HC/OC realize that the offense he is running isn't his. He has help implementing the offensive gameplan from Helfrich, who was the previous OC for Chip Kelly. I am sure he has a good idea on what it would take to do the job at a different school but I feel it would be a struggle.
sd'sker
Banned
sd'sker
Banned
this ignores that bo is a huge beneficiary from a joke of a schedule. give this team our 2007 (or 2011 or 2012) schedule and we do not see 9 wins.
this teams has regressed since year two, but the schedule has balanced it out.
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerNBigD
Starter
Honestly with our schedule - I don't think there is a coach that would end up with a record much worse than Bo's. If you were to look at our schedule we have a guaranteed 7 wins a year, based off of purely inferior teams, another 2-3 games where the end result could go either way, and 1-2 games that usually could be chalked up as a loss before we step on the field. I am willing to take the risk of a 8-4 season, or hell even 7-5, in a new coach's first year or two if I were able to see measurable progress in the close games.
What is measurable progress? I see measurable progress as Nebraska competing in hard-fought games between ranked teams, where we truly played up to our talent level. I'm not calling for winning every game in this scenario because, as we have seen, college football is at a point where in a match-up between ranked opponents, either team could win on any given Saturday. But I would like us to at least be competitive. There is a big difference between the results of games like Ole Miss vs. Alabama or Ole Miss vs. LSU and the result we saw in Madison. I only bring those examples up because of the over used, "well even Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss lose". They do, but it is very rare they lose in the fashion we do. The top teams compete in back and forth games, with the final possession usually proving a critical point to the outcome.
However, I don't think that argument is any excuse to Bo's 0-7 record because he has shown year in and year out that when we get into the spot-light we are not competitive, hell even look at the Michigan State game this year. I think the record of Bo's past seasons, his over glorified 9-4 consistency, overshadows how truly fortunate we were in some of those games. The more I begin to realize Bo cant win the top 20 match ups, the more I am willing to take the risk of a coaching change with a subsequent down-period.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
This is insanity.
sd'sker
Banned
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Really guys?
Oregon plays a wide-open multiple weapon offense where the quarterback is just as likely to throw on first down -- or three times in a row -- as the Beck gameplan that supposedly drives you mad. Frost is continuing a Chip Kelly offense that prides itself on unpredictibility. They are the very model of master-of-all-trades. That's why they're perhaps the most fun offense in college football.
The difference is, they're winning. That's their identity. They win.
Even when they lose, they make it exciting. For a decade Oregon's been able to stockpile high-octane offensive talent from around the country. That makes an offensive coordinator's job a lot easier.
Read this article again. Scott Frost isn't so much talking about schemes, he's talking about attitude. Smashmouth, wear-your-opponent down football. Today's Oregon and Tom Osborne's Nebraska ran very different offenses, but they won. Winning wears down your opponent. Scott Frost is combining memories of two football dynasties that were up and running when he arrived. With a demoralized program like we have now, changing the culture is more important than changing the playbook.
Oregon plays a wide-open multiple weapon offense where the quarterback is just as likely to throw on first down -- or three times in a row -- as the Beck gameplan that supposedly drives you mad. Frost is continuing a Chip Kelly offense that prides itself on unpredictibility. They are the very model of master-of-all-trades. That's why they're perhaps the most fun offense in college football.
The difference is, they're winning. That's their identity. They win.
Even when they lose, they make it exciting. For a decade Oregon's been able to stockpile high-octane offensive talent from around the country. That makes an offensive coordinator's job a lot easier.
Read this article again. Scott Frost isn't so much talking about schemes, he's talking about attitude. Smashmouth, wear-your-opponent down football. Today's Oregon and Tom Osborne's Nebraska ran very different offenses, but they won. Winning wears down your opponent. Scott Frost is combining memories of two football dynasties that were up and running when he arrived. With a demoralized program like we have now, changing the culture is more important than changing the playbook.
Landlord
Banned
Personally I'm not mad about anything.
I have no problem with Bo being hired without head coach experience. Head coaching experience isn't and has never been an indicator of future success. Coaching hires are always a risk.
The trick is minimizing risk while maximizing potential positive gain but all while not letting the idea of being conservative keep you from going after someone that all signs point to eventually being great.
There's no reason not to hire Scott Frost if we need a new coach (just as one example, not the only one). He might not be any better than Bo, but the chances that he could be are really good, and he IS going to be a power 5 head coach soon. We don't want to be the school that missed out on him because we were scared of the gamble.
I have no problem with Bo being hired without head coach experience. Head coaching experience isn't and has never been an indicator of future success. Coaching hires are always a risk.
The trick is minimizing risk while maximizing potential positive gain but all while not letting the idea of being conservative keep you from going after someone that all signs point to eventually being great.
There's no reason not to hire Scott Frost if we need a new coach (just as one example, not the only one). He might not be any better than Bo, but the chances that he could be are really good, and he IS going to be a power 5 head coach soon. We don't want to be the school that missed out on him because we were scared of the gamble.
Landlord
Banned
So a guy that has had success everywhere he's been and has spent his most productive years in the best possible cultures for winning would be a bad hire.....how, exactly?