Which offense give us the best chance to win?

Running quarterbacks really are not that few and far between, maybe legendary dual threats like Gill and Frazier are but that's the case with any position. You're not gonna see a 10 year span where some team just reloads that kind of running QB talent. Just like you won't have 3 consecutive Peyton Mannings stockpiled on a roster.

The spread is prevalent in high-school. Pro-style offenses are not. There are tons of spread dual-threat quarterbacks out there.

Pro style offenses are just fine. Hell they are great when you can pay a roster, have vets to get it running, can have a franchise quarterback with no turnover at the position except occaisonal injuries for 10 years. Can buy an offensive line that will stick around under contract for years. Have a team whose full time job is to study film, playbooks, work out, and practice.

College doesn't allow those luxuries, which is why I think that outside the few niche teams like USC you don't see it work that well. Hell Pete Carrol and Harbaugh are the only coaches that have made it successful that I can think of (the rest got fired) and USC had to vacate a championship and Heisman because of the players they did it with.

Count me out on that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If I can expand further on my point about NU not being able to pull it top throwing QBs, I think it has more to do with our inabilty to pull in top WRs. WRs don't like playing in cold weather, most big time WRs go to warm weather schools. Blue Chip QBs tend to follow them. Cold weather schools get the leftovers. Sure there's a few top WRs now and then who don't mind it, but we'd be fighting Michigan, Notre Dame, and Ohio State for them. And all those schools have more of a history sending WRs and QBs to the NFL, so that's a losing battle. If I have my choice between the best running QB in the nation or a below average to average throwing QB, I'll take the runner. That's the barrel the head coach at Nebraska is looking down.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not really about the QB, it's about the WR's.

Nebraska simply has never been in a position to have gotten the elite WR's consistently. Those guys tend to gravitate towards beaches. Therefore we aren't going to get in on the elite pro-style QB's that want to play with those elite level WR's. We simply aren't going to get the guy everyone and their mother says you'll be our QB and we'll get you into the NFL.

Which means for Nebraska to have it's best offensive firepower it can recruit it needs a dual-threat QB who can not only make plays with his feet but score touchdowns with them consistently. Nebraska can land that top tier elite athlete that wants to be a QB but everyone else says "we'll give you a shot at QB but we really see you at WR/DB" and tell them you WILL play QB at NU, give them a couple great backs, a big, mean line and a bunch of big-bodied blocking WR's who can make a few good plays down-field and with that Nebraska can win a lot of games.

 
Pro style offense works best with playaction and a heavy dose of the run, tie in some option and spread that wins in College.

 
The Dude said:
If I can expand further on my point about NU not being able to pull it top throwing QBs, I think it has more to do with our inabilty to pull in top WRs. WRs don't like playing in cold weather, most big time WRs go to warm weather schools. Blue Chip QBs tend to follow them. Cold weather schools get the leftovers. Sure there's a few top WRs now and then who don't mind it, but we'd be fighting Michigan, Notre Dame, and Ohio State for them. And all those schools have more of a history sending WRs and QBs to the NFL, so that's a losing battle. If I have my choice between the best running QB in the nation or a below average to average throwing QB, I'll take the runner. That's the barrel the head coach at Nebraska is looking down.
Click to expand...
This "it's too cold to pass" idea has been around for a LONG time in Nebraska, but it's just not true. Michigan thinks we live in the balmy south and they've had pro-style QBs with great WR talent for years and years and years. You can recruit those kinds of players here, we just chose not to for 30 years because we wanted to run a unique offense.

__________________________________

Part of the genius of Osborne is that he stuck with the Option when he realized it would open a recruiting avenue to players that most other schools weren't going after. That allowed us to attract the top QBs and RBs from option-style high school offenses. Cornering the market on a specific kind of talent is a wise move.

I maintain that Osborne's offense as it existed in the 90s would not only succeed but could dominate right now, just like it did then. But you'd have to have the coaches to teach it and frankly, we don't. The guys we have now coach their kind of offense - whatever that is - and that's what we want them to do. Watson failed miserably when Bo asked him to coach an offense with which he was not familiar. That's the square peg/round hole problem that we've had these few years past.

 
knapplc said:
The Dude said:
If I can expand further on my point about NU not being able to pull it top throwing QBs, I think it has more to do with our inabilty to pull in top WRs. WRs don't like playing in cold weather, most big time WRs go to warm weather schools. Blue Chip QBs tend to follow them. Cold weather schools get the leftovers. Sure there's a few top WRs now and then who don't mind it, but we'd be fighting Michigan, Notre Dame, and Ohio State for them. And all those schools have more of a history sending WRs and QBs to the NFL, so that's a losing battle. If I have my choice between the best running QB in the nation or a below average to average throwing QB, I'll take the runner. That's the barrel the head coach at Nebraska is looking down.
Click to expand...
This "it's too cold to pass" idea has been around for a LONG time in Nebraska, but it's just not true. Michigan thinks we live in the balmy south and they've had pro-style QBs with great WR talent for years and years and years. You can recruit those kinds of players here, we just chose not to for 30 years because we wanted to run a unique offense.

__________________________________

Part of the genius of Osborne is that he stuck with the Option when he realized it would open a recruiting avenue to players that most other schools weren't going after. That allowed us to attract the top QBs and RBs from option-style high school offenses. Cornering the market on a specific kind of talent is a wise move.

I maintain that Osborne's offense as it existed in the 90s would not only succeed but could dominate right now, just like it did then. But you'd have to have the coaches to teach it and frankly, we don't. The guys we have now coach their kind of offense - whatever that is - and that's what we want them to do. Watson failed miserably when Bo asked him to coach an offense with which he was not familiar. That's the square peg/round hole problem that we've had these few years past.
Click to expand...
Michigan also has a much stronger local recruiting base. They've been able to build a history of sending WRs and QBs to the NFL because of it. We never had such luxuries, huge difference.

You're dead on on the bit I bolded.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
redblooded said:
Running quarterbacks really are not that few and far between, maybe legendary dual threats like Gill and Frazier are but that's the case with any position. You're not gonna see a 10 year span where some team just reloads that kind of running QB talent. Just like you won't have 3 consecutive Peyton Mannings stockpiled on a roster.

The spread is prevalent in high-school. Pro-style offenses are not. There are tons of spread dual-threat quarterbacks out there.

Pro style offenses are just fine. Hell they are great when you can pay a roster, have vets to get it running, can have a franchise quarterback with no turnover at the position except occaisonal injuries for 10 years. Can buy an offensive line that will stick around under contract for years. Have a team whose full time job is to study film, playbooks, work out, and practice.

College doesn't allow those luxuries, which is why I think that outside the few niche teams like USC you don't see it work that well. Hell Pete Carrol and Harbaugh are the only coaches that have made it successful that I can think of (the rest got fired) and USC had to vacate a championship and Heisman because of the players they did it with.

Count me out on that.
Click to expand...
Neither are Scott Tolziens, Zac Taylors, Riley Skinners, Greg McelRoys, etc. All 3* (or lower) recruits who weren't anything special when the arrived on their respective campuses. Because they didn't need amazing athletic ability, but grasp of the offense and game management and decision making skill.

I have no statistical anything to back up this theory, and I don't intend to find them (wink wink knapp). But I think it's easier to find and maintain consistency a Mike Teel than a B.J. Daniels.

 
GMoose said:
Neither are Scott Tolziens, Zac Taylors, Riley Skinners, Greg McelRoys, etc. All 3* (or lower) recruits who weren't anything special when the arrived on their respective campuses. Because they didn't need amazing athletic ability, but grasp of the offense and game management and decision making skill.

I have no statistical anything to back up this theory, and I don't intend to find them (wink wink knapp). But I think it's easier to find and maintain consistency a Mike Teel than a B.J. Daniels.
Click to expand...
I'm not doing your legwork! :D

However, I would agree that "traditional" quarterbacks are most likely more prevalent than running QBs in High School. It is common in most football settings to think of a QB as a player who calls the signals and passes the ball, NOT runs the ball. Places like Nebraska are the exception, not the rule.

 
GMoose said:
Since we derailed the "QB depth thread" with our engaging QB debate, I'll start one here asking which style does everyone think gives us the best chance to win? All things considered - region, recruiting, whatever you think affects it.

My argument (as you may have read) is that a pro style offense gives us the best chance to win the most games. We've proven that we can recruit good backs and linemen, and solid receivers. My point, it's going to be easier to come across a Joe Ganz or Greg McElroy than a Taylot Martinez or Tyrod Taylor. It's easier to find those guys, especially in the midwest, rather than speed guys that are more than likely from SEC country.

Why am I right/wrong? What do all of you think gives us the best opportunity to have the best offense year in and year out?
Click to expand...

Well... my thought is that if you do something well , as a team... then recruiting system players will work out. That is... if we have success with Martinez and/or Carnes and/or Starling (if he comes)... then getting other speed types (who are not natural passers but maybe proficient to throw when needed), no matter where they are from, will work out. That said, if we continue w/o success, then getting such players in the future will be tough.

Regarding getting a legitimate passing, pro-style QB with future NFL-level talent--- that will be a tough one. We have never had such a QB at NU (at least in the 28 years I have followed NU football) and getting the first one to come would be a hard sell. We do not have the history, immediate or distant past, that would help to convince a QB to come. If I were an opposing recruiting coach talking to a legitimate passing QB who was considering coming to NU, I'd have them watch the mechanics of our current QB's and ask them if that is the kind of QB coaching they want in their future. The point is, we can recruit defensive players very well because we have had a very successful defense over time and have certifiable coaching excellence on D --- it makes us very competitive for talent no matter where they come from. For a passing QB we have no history and no coaching excellence to sell. I'd think landing a passing QB (that others actually want... a future NFL-type passer), would be a real, real long shot.

I'd say our system has already been chosen --- we are a dual-threat type QB offense until it is shown to succeed --- or until it is overhauled upon definitive evidence that it cannot work. We are committed, I'd think, for the next few years to see if we can have success with the TMart/Carnes types --- only time will tell if that will work. So far? Not so good. Our offense has been pathetic. We will recruit top-level QB talent only if we succeed on the field first... no matter what the system. We have not succeeded thus far and so....

 
I don't think the offense was THAT bad last year. Heck, we had a back break the single game rushing record, so they can pull it together every now and then. Turner, Bell, and Kinnie will be able to stretch defenses somewhat, which I'm hoping will open up the running game. I'm also hoping we DON'T run hurry up on every drive, though, because it puts that much more pressure on the Blackshirts if/when they go 3 and out.

I've always maintained that Nebraska was built with the ground game. Do we need a passing threat? Of course, but our bread and butter always has been and will be 3 yards and a cloud of dust whether it's from the I or shotgun.

No matter what we're running, having very few penalties and turnovers will increase their success so much, it'll be our favorite offense since Crouch was trucking safeties and flying by the longhorn secondary.

 
I have to agree with robsker's first point. Theoretically any kind of offense can be effective. More important than what you run is the philosophy behind it. I think it should be simple enough that freakish athletic talent is able to contribute early in their career as opposed to sitting on the bench until they grasp all the nuance of the playbook. I also think that every ball carrying position should be utilized (including the fullback) with enough regularity that opposing teams have to scheme around it. I think the QB should be able to run the ball well, although not necessarily at the level of being an every down home run threat.

Obviously you want something like balance, but a run first, option oriented ground game that utilizes all skill positions in a variety of ways and features a mobile quarterback is my ideal offense. Call it whatever you want––spread option, Florida, Oregon––that's the kind of offense I enjoy watching, and the kind that at least in modern day CFB has proven to be consistently effective. It's also not seen as much in the Big 10.

 
Keller was a big get, and Lee was one of the top JUCO QBs in the nation.

Like I said, there are football reasons you can argue for going after one QB or another. But "We're in cold, lonely Nebraska, we can't :( :(" is not a good one. I also have to heavily disagree with "This is how we rolled in the old days, so this is the only way Nebraska can succeed." Times change and programs can either adapt (as ours *is* doing) or get left behind, perpetually pining for the past. Of course it doesn't preclude a program from doing the same thing it has done, but choosing whether or not to do so should be independent of "Well, that's what they did when they were winning 20 years ago."

+1 for balance. By the way, GMoose, I think you are advocating a balanced offense, not really a passing one, are you not? Unless 50/50 splits count as 'passing'. I think a lot of the models you could bring up, i.e, Alabama, Wisconsin, Wake, Kansas under Mangino, were all about 50/50 splits. Even the Huskers under Callahan and Watson were IIRC.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
Keller was a big get, and Lee was one of the top JUCO QBs in the nation.

Like I said, there are football reasons you can argue for going after one QB or another. But "We're in cold, lonely Nebraska, we can't :( :(" is not a good one. I also have to heavily disagree with "This is how we rolled in the old days, so this is the only way Nebraska can succeed." Times change and programs can either adapt (as ours *is* doing) or get left behind, perpetually pining for the past. Of course it doesn't preclude a program from doing the same thing it has done, but choosing whether or not to do so should be independent of "Well, that's what they did when they were winning 20 years ago."

+1 for balance. By the way, GMoose, I think you are advocating a balanced offense, not really a passing one, are you not? Unless 50/50 splits count as 'passing'. I think a lot of the models you could bring up, i.e, Alabama, Wisconsin, Wake, Kansas under Mangino, were all about 50/50 splits. Even the Huskers under Callahan and Watson were IIRC.
Click to expand...
I think I'm the guy who mentioned "ye olden days" so to be clear, I wasn't advocating that that was the offense we should run. We could run it, but then we could run any offense, and be successful.

I think pretty much all of us are saying we can be successful running any kind of offense, if we just execute. To borrow Bo's favorite word.

 
Agreed knapp. That part also wasn't in response to you. You made a point on cold weather WRs I agreed with. It's just a general sentiment I see a lot. We're Nebraska, we shouldn't be doing these blasphemous things, etc. :)

 
Husker_x said:
I have to agree with robsker's first point. Theoretically any kind of offense can be effective. More important than what you run is the philosophy behind it. I think it should be simple enough that freakish athletic talent is able to contribute early in their career as opposed to sitting on the bench until they grasp all the nuance of the playbook. I also think that every ball carrying position should be utilized (including the fullback) with enough regularity that opposing teams have to scheme around it. I think the QB should be able to run the ball well, although not necessarily at the level of being an every down home run threat.

Obviously you want something like balance, but a run first, option oriented ground game that utilizes all skill positions in a variety of ways and features a mobile quarterback is my ideal offense. Call it whatever you want––spread option, Florida, Oregon––that's the kind of offense I enjoy watching, and the kind that at least in modern day CFB has proven to be consistently effective. It's also not seen as much in the Big 10.
Click to expand...
This

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top