Tim Beck interviewing for the UTEP job?

[The Dude]

You can still run a ton of power sets and run with power out of the shotgun.

As far as blocking schemes go, I agree. We tend to use the same same run-blocking schemes no matter what the formation is. However, I still cringe when we line up in the shotgun in short-yardage/goal-line situations.

When we have Taylor and a running back literally standing in to backfield, trying to decide who gets the ball, far too often it ends in disaster. I'd like to see a running back running down hill as soon as the ball is snapped in those situations. Preferably with a fullback leading the way.

 

[HuskerShark]

We have one of the top rushing offenses in the country, but rushing isn't our priority?!?!

I should say, in our 3 losses, Beck hit the panic button when he didn't need to, threw it 3 times, and punted. This offense is best when we line up in the pistol or the I formation and pound it straight ahead. (or toss sweep). This is why I'm not 100% on Beck yet. I think he has shown a lot of potential, but he has sure wet the bed a lot, whether we are trailing by a score or two, or we get into the red zone. I feel like he tries to out-think himself, and he goes away from what is working. I'm not sure how many times this year I saw us run the ball all the way down the field, get inside the red zone, and then run play action out of the shotgun 3 straight times.

You can disagree with me, that's fine. I realize Taylor's yardage comes out of the shotgun, and that's great if it gets used every once in a while, but it has really become our base set. And against a good defense like Wisconsin's, when we really needed a fullback to lead the way through the hole and open up a little extra running room, we run shotgun ALL GAME LONG. I realize the offense isn't the part of the team to blame for that sh**ty performance last weekend, but they played their part in the blowout loss. Some of that came from interceptions and some from fumbles. But what people don't realize is that if the offense would have run the ball more when we were down 21-10 and 28-10, we would have allowed our defense more time to catch their breath and wrap their heads around what was happening on the field.

 

[Count 'Bility]

You can still run a ton of power sets and run with power out of the shotgun.

As far as blocking schemes go, I agree. We tend to use the same same run-blocking schemes no matter what the formation is. However, I still cringe when we line up in the shotgun in short-yardage/goal-line situations.

When we have Taylor and a running back literally standing in to backfield, trying to decide who gets the ball, far too often it ends in disaster. I'd like to see a running back running down hill as soon as the ball is snapped in those situations. Preferably with a fullback leading the way.

These zone reads are what make me cringe. They are so "all or nothing" We leave a guy unblocked purposelly, and rely totally on the read of the qb to determine in an instant which player that unblocked defender is going to chase. The play only has a 33% success chance, because if you make the wrong read or the defender slow plays it (like we're starting to see a lot of if the players are disciplined enough), youre getting nothing. I prefer the designed qb runs off fakes and rb sweeps and powers out of the gun, where all defenders are accounted for in a blocking scheme. Those seem to be a successful on a lot more consistent basis.

 

[HuskerShark]

These zone reads are what make me cringe. They are so "all or nothing"

IMO, you hit the nail on the head with just that. I've always preferred the old Big Ten offensive style (3 yards and a cloud of dust). Only I would sprinkle in more play action. When people complain about only picking up 3 yards on a run play, I always tell them, "You know, if you are guaranteed to gain 3 yards on every single play, you would be unstoppable. You have 4 plays to gain 10 or more yards." Of course that's not reality, but we've done it to plenty of people this year, and a few teams have done it to us: when a defense gets consistently run on, and can't make stops on 3rd down despite its best effort, it is demoralizing. It's a whole additional part of the game that doesn't necessarily show up on the stat sheet.

That was Nebraska's M.O. for years until Callahan got here: run the ball, be the more physical team, and wear down the opposing defense. By the 4th quarter you end up gashing the defense for big gains because they are mentally and physically exhausted.

But to do that, you have to have a physical rushing attack. At times, we have it, and other times, we don't. Our offensive line was probably the best run blocking line we have had in over a decade, and it's something that really went under the radar. We need to use that to our advantage during the bowl game, because in passing situations, our OT's really are the weakness of the offense, and are horrible in pass protection.

/end rant. Off to the gym.

 

[clyde40]

These zone reads are what make me cringe. They are so "all or nothing"

IMO, you hit the nail on the head with just that. I've always preferred the old Big Ten offensive style (3 yards and a cloud of dust). Only I would sprinkle in more play action. When people complain about only picking up 3 yards on a run play, I always tell them, "You know, if you are guaranteed to gain 3 yards on every single play, you would be unstoppable. You have 4 plays to gain 10 or more yards." Of course that's not reality, but we've done it to plenty of people this year, and a few teams have done it to us: when a defense gets consistently run on, and can't make stops on 3rd down despite its best effort, it is demoralizing. It's a whole additional part of the game that doesn't necessarily show up on the stat sheet.

That was Nebraska's M.O. for years until Callahan got here: run the ball, be the more physical team, and wear down the opposing defense. By the 4th quarter you end up gashing the defense for big gains because they are mentally and physically exhausted.

But to do that, you have to have a physical rushing attack. At times, we have it, and other times, we don't. Our offensive line was probably the best run blocking line we have had in over a decade, and it's something that really went under the radar. We need to use that to our advantage during the bowl game, because in passing situations, our OT's really are the weakness of the offense, and are horrible in pass protection.

/end rant. Off to the gym.

So did you guys hate Tom Osborne's offense too? And sorry if I sound like an a$$ I'm really not trying to be one it's just an honest question. Rather it's a traditional option, zone read, or triple option you're leaving a guy unblocked and reading him. It's a big risk reward type thing but it's what Nebraska ran for years. If I can find an article I'll post it. A paper interviewed Dr. Tom when GT hired Paul Johnson to talk about the option before VT played them. The most interesting thing he said was that their plays were designed to get 8 yard per play. (or something along those lines) It wasn't all about 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

Edit: found the article http://voices.washingtonpost.com/hokies-journal/2009/10/option_offense_qa_with_nebrask.html

 

[HuskerShark]

So did you guys hate Tom Osborne's offense too? And sorry if I sound like an a$$ I'm really not trying to be one it's just an honest question. Rather it's a traditional option, zone read, or triple option you're leaving a guy unblocked and reading him. It's a big risk reward type thing but it's what Nebraska ran for years. If I can find an article I'll post it. A paper interviewed Dr. Tom when GT hired Paul Johnson to talk about the option before VT played them. The most interesting thing he said was that their plays were designed to get 8 yard per play. (or something along those lines) It wasn't all about 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

Edit: found the article http://voices.washin...th_nebrask.html

To be honest, I think I was 7 or 8 when TO retired, so I'm not fortunate enough to have lived through the golden years of Nebraska football at a good age in my life. I can still remember sitting at home watching the 97 Orange Bowl when we won our 5th National Title, and I vividly remember the thrashing in 2001 that we took from Miami even though I was pretty young during both.

To be clear, I LOVE the option and triple option, and I think the zone read is a great part of our offense now. The problem with zone read is that you can't become too reliant on it. In 2010, Watson tried to run the zone read 25 times a game it seemed, and once we met a good defense (Texas, Oklahoma) it got blown up. We don't run an incredible amount of zone read anymore. Maybe 5-7 times a game (probably just enough). I just don't like the way we try to run Rex and Ameer out of the shotgun. It just seems too finesse, and like I said, against Wisconsin, we have had limited success running out of the shotgun either time we played them this year. Borland and Taylor are one HELL of a set of linebackers, and IMO we needed a fullback in there to lead the way. The first matchup with Wisconsin when Rex rumbled up the field in the second half and had a lot of success running the ball, we had a fullback leading the way IIRC.

Janovich is already a good fullback, and before you know it, he is going to be a STUD at FB. We need to take advantage of that.

 

[MLB 51]

This thing went wrong.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Anyone that would be glad to see Beck leave right now is completely friggen nuts. Our offense is set up to be very very potent next year. We absolutely don't need a coaching change to throw that all into a mess. One heck of a lot of the growth we saw this year in Taylor was because it was his (and everyone elses's) second year in the system.

Look at the rankings in almost every offensive category. He knows how to design an offense. He's not bad in play calling and will continue to grow.

 

[clyde40]

So did you guys hate Tom Osborne's offense too? And sorry if I sound like an a$$ I'm really not trying to be one it's just an honest question. Rather it's a traditional option, zone read, or triple option you're leaving a guy unblocked and reading him. It's a big risk reward type thing but it's what Nebraska ran for years. If I can find an article I'll post it. A paper interviewed Dr. Tom when GT hired Paul Johnson to talk about the option before VT played them. The most interesting thing he said was that their plays were designed to get 8 yard per play. (or something along those lines) It wasn't all about 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

Edit: found the article http://voices.washin...th_nebrask.html

To be honest, I think I was 7 or 8 when TO retired, so I'm not fortunate enough to have lived through the golden years of Nebraska football at a good age in my life. I can still remember sitting at home watching the 97 Orange Bowl when we won our 5th National Title, and I vividly remember the thrashing in 2001 that we took from Miami even though I was pretty young during both.

To be clear, I LOVE the option and triple option, and I think the zone read is a great part of our offense now. The problem with zone read is that you can't become too reliant on it. In 2010, Watson tried to run the zone read 25 times a game it seemed, and once we met a good defense (Texas, Oklahoma) it got blown up. We don't run an incredible amount of zone read anymore. Maybe 5-7 times a game (probably just enough). I just don't like the way we try to run Rex and Ameer out of the shotgun. It just seems too finesse, and like I said, against Wisconsin, we have had limited success running out of the shotgun either time we played them this year. Borland and Taylor are one HELL of a set of linebackers, and IMO we needed a fullback in there to lead the way. The first matchup with Wisconsin when Rex rumbled up the field in the second half and had a lot of success running the ball, we had a fullback leading the way IIRC.

Janovich is already a good fullback, and before you know it, he is going to be a STUD at FB. We need to take advantage of that.

I'm there with you I'm only 19 I've just watched plenty of games from the "glory days". There's actually a copy of the '97 playbook online, that's pretty cool to look at. I think they went to the shotgun so much against Wis. is because they didn't want to come out in the I then have Wis drop a couple more guys into the box with that LB duo. I'm guessing they wanted to spread them out and try to isolate them a little bit but, it didn't really work out. That and we got behind so fast it really didn't matter.

 

[HuskerShark]

I'm there with you I'm only 19 I've just watched plenty of games from the "glory days". There's actually a copy of the '97 playbook online, that's pretty cool to look at. I think they went to the shotgun so much against Wis. is because they didn't want to come out in the I then have Wis drop a couple more guys into the box with that LB duo. I'm guessing they wanted to spread them out and try to isolate them a little bit but, it didn't really work out. That and we got behind so fast it really didn't matter.

It was a sh#t game plan and sh#t play calling, let's just leave it at that.

With all of the above said, I still want Beck to be at Nebraska if for no other reason than continuity. He's a pretty good recruiter and has shown a lot of ability as an OC. Hopefully he starts to trend the offense in a direction that will help us win championships. AKA power running game. I know we run a lot of power runs like the toss sweep, but power run game with play action pass needs to be the identity of this offense, and it will help us to win more games and turn the ball over less (hopefully).

 

[Count 'Bility]

These zone reads are what make me cringe. They are so "all or nothing"

IMO, you hit the nail on the head with just that. I've always preferred the old Big Ten offensive style (3 yards and a cloud of dust). Only I would sprinkle in more play action. When people complain about only picking up 3 yards on a run play, I always tell them, "You know, if you are guaranteed to gain 3 yards on every single play, you would be unstoppable. You have 4 plays to gain 10 or more yards." Of course that's not reality, but we've done it to plenty of people this year, and a few teams have done it to us: when a defense gets consistently run on, and can't make stops on 3rd down despite its best effort, it is demoralizing. It's a whole additional part of the game that doesn't necessarily show up on the stat sheet.

That was Nebraska's M.O. for years until Callahan got here: run the ball, be the more physical team, and wear down the opposing defense. By the 4th quarter you end up gashing the defense for big gains because they are mentally and physically exhausted.

But to do that, you have to have a physical rushing attack. At times, we have it, and other times, we don't. Our offensive line was probably the best run blocking line we have had in over a decade, and it's something that really went under the radar. We need to use that to our advantage during the bowl game, because in passing situations, our OT's really are the weakness of the offense, and are horrible in pass protection.

/end rant. Off to the gym.

So did you guys hate Tom Osborne's offense too? And sorry if I sound like an a$$ I'm really not trying to be one it's just an honest question. Rather it's a traditional option, zone read, or triple option you're leaving a guy unblocked and reading him. It's a big risk reward type thing but it's what Nebraska ran for years. If I can find an article I'll post it. A paper interviewed Dr. Tom when GT hired Paul Johnson to talk about the option before VT played them. The most interesting thing he said was that their plays were designed to get 8 yard per play. (or something along those lines) It wasn't all about 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

Edit: found the article http://voices.washin...th_nebrask.html

Over the last few years, Osborne was going away from the triple option to using more of the speed option and power option look, where they get the fullback out on the perimiter. Probably because defenses were getting quicker and quicker. But I see where youre getting with this.

Also Shark, TO's offenses in the 90's were anything but 3 yards and a cloud of dust perception. We like to take pride in that but if you go back and re-watch them games from the glory year, the things that Osborne was doing offensively were so distinctive that it is comparable to what Oregon is doing these. By the time Frost came around, we were seeing spread sets being used with designe qb runs behind powers and traps. Tommie Frazier scored in the 96 Fiesta Bowl on a QB trap draw out of a 5 WR set from 30 yards out. Yes, we often pounded opponents into submission late in games, but it was usually after our multiplicity got the lead to begin with.

The other part is defense. We usually also had the defense to know that 20 points was probably going to be enough. In this offensive era of college football, that's not the case anymore. Most to all teams go into games knowing they have to get points on the board as early and often as they can, just in case. I believe this mindset does more harm than good for to me it really hampers that patience/it's a 60 minute game mindset. But I think our staff has done well at handling that because we've came back more late in games this year than any other.

 

[Hammerhead]

Beck does a fine job. Why anybody wants him to leave is beyond me.

 

[HuskerNationNick]

Beck does a fine job. Why anybody wants him to leave is beyond me.

Because he isn't scoring 100 points a game and the opening drives don't always end in scores. Not hard to understand :sarcasm

If rumors were to be true, which once again they were not, then I would wish Beck the best of luck and pray we had an answer for this change, as I would see it hurting us more than anything.

 

[kchusker_chris]

If Beck is truly weighing a job at UTEP, it is time for Bo to bring out the checkbook quickly!!!!

The absolutely last thing this team, and especially Taylor Martinez, needs right now is a changeover on the offensive staff. The Huskers are in year two offensively, look at the difference from year one. This is the one area that might salvage an easier schedule next year if the new defensive talent doesn't come to fruition.

I understand people are frustrated with the environment of "on the job training". But, these coaches are gaining the experience. Let them use that experience here as long as it is helping the team. Why "hope" that a coach takes his "on the job training" somewhere else and leave Bo to hire another coach with limited experience to start the whole process over again.

Because their are a great many idiotic so called fans that have no clue what goes into a successful program. They try to compare it to running company and it's nothing like it. They have no clue about things like continuity and how they benefit a collegiate athletic program. One bad game and they want a slew of coaches to be fired. It's just simple stupidity. Then of course there's the lovely concept that "we fans DESERVE better" which is a complete crock of sh#t.

Yes, I'm grumpy today. That is all.

continuity is only a benefit if there is proven talent to maintain. otherwise it just becomes status quo - and people like you ride the rollercoaster wondering why nothing ever gets fixed. perhaps because nothing ever gets better (or conversely worse) without change. if you are content with the current state of the program then by all means, continue to campaign for the status quo - even call it continuity if you want. but it's not necessary to call out as idiots those that don't choose to ignore the last 5 years. I have no issue with Beck - but if every one of our coaches continues to take 3-4 years to finally reach a point where they are competent in their position we are going to be continually operating at 70% on this staff because of the hiring practices of our HC. we have enough disadvantages without always saying "so-and-so is only in their first or second year, give them time".

 

[Count 'Bility]

If Beck is truly weighing a job at UTEP, it is time for Bo to bring out the checkbook quickly!!!!

The absolutely last thing this team, and especially Taylor Martinez, needs right now is a changeover on the offensive staff. The Huskers are in year two offensively, look at the difference from year one. This is the one area that might salvage an easier schedule next year if the new defensive talent doesn't come to fruition.

I understand people are frustrated with the environment of "on the job training". But, these coaches are gaining the experience. Let them use that experience here as long as it is helping the team. Why "hope" that a coach takes his "on the job training" somewhere else and leave Bo to hire another coach with limited experience to start the whole process over again.

Because their are a great many idiotic so called fans that have no clue what goes into a successful program. They try to compare it to running company and it's nothing like it. They have no clue about things like continuity and how they benefit a collegiate athletic program. One bad game and they want a slew of coaches to be fired. It's just simple stupidity. Then of course there's the lovely concept that "we fans DESERVE better" which is a complete crock of sh#t.

Yes, I'm grumpy today. That is all.

continuity is only a benefit if there is proven talent to maintain. otherwise it just becomes status quo - and people like you ride the rollercoaster wondering why nothing ever gets fixed. perhaps because nothing ever gets better (or conversely worse) without change. if you are content with the current state of the program then by all means, continue to campaign for the status quo - even call it continuity if you want. but it's not necessary to call out as idiots those that don't choose to ignore the last 5 years. I have no issue with Beck - but if every one of our coaches continues to take 3-4 years to finally reach a point where they are competent in their position we are going to be continually operating at 70% on this staff because of the hiring practices of our HC. we have enough disadvantages without always saying "so-and-so is only in their first or second year, give them time".

This statement would be right and I would agree had any but 2 coaches on this staff been here or had their current job for longer than just under 2 seasons. That's the point I'm trying to make. Some want coaching changes. Well, Bo's done that already. This whole staff is pretty much new. It does take some time. I just happen to feel it hasnt been enough and that if we get on this kick of firing any coaches after a 10 win (possibly 11-dont laugh) season, it will do more harm than good.