sd'sker
Banned
we run that play (along with many, many others), but we certainly do not run an option offense.Polo we do still run the option not sure if you missed those several plays or what but I mean. We do.
we run that play (along with many, many others), but we certainly do not run an option offense.Polo we do still run the option not sure if you missed those several plays or what but I mean. We do.
Patently false.The only time in history that we've ran an option offense was under Frank Solich.
cool. i like trivia.The only time in history that we've ran an option offense was under Frank Solich.
Wait.The only time in history that we've ran an option offense was under Frank Solich.
I would say the only thing Auburn and Nebraska share is a desire to speed up playcalling to tire a defense out.That's such a load of bullsh#t.Those schools have an identity. Nebraska does not.Because having a run heavy offense, the conference's top rusher, and the nation's #9 rusher who is only behind someone from one of the schools you listed isn't working. Not to mention we rank 3 spots behind those dudes from Palo Alto and 5 spots ahead of the boys from Tuscaloosa all with our 1-2 rushing combo being reduced to a 1 for the majority of the season.Count me in the camp that if it can work in Palo Alto, CA, Auburn AL, Madison WI and Tuscaloosa it can work here. Again.
I'm sick of the counter punching offense.
Tell me, what is their "identity" that makes them so unique, compared to Nebraska? All are different. Do they use zone or man? What type of route running concepts? Do they emphasize the QB run game?
And it's funny you mention Auburn, because we're similar philosophically.
It makes me think you're just trolling and piling on, because your argument makes no sense.
Malzahn has borrowed a lot from the run and blocking schemes that Osborne used to use, and that,obviously is not what Nebraska does now.
They typically use man blocking, but can drop into a zone.
Now, how did I get those specific answers? I looked it up. I simply googled "Auburn's offensive scheme" and got several pretty interesting articles detailing Malzahn's vision.
As a corollary, I also googled "Nebraska's offensive scheme". I got several articles detailing how they're searching for one, a bunch on the option (which isn't ran anymore by Nebraska, obviously), and some articles on Tom Osborne, who isn't the coach anymore.
And then going off of what Beck said to a guy who he knows personally (also in the article linked in this thread) we get a bunch of talk about complicated schemes, obsolete tight ends, and essentially a counterpunching offense that almost reminded me of the infamous "we take what we want" talk from Bill Callahan.
I think one of the biggest struggles Nebraska has is that it doesn't have an identity anymore. Stanford, Auburn, Wisconsin and Alabama do. This article and what I just looked at further did nothing to dissuade me from that point.
Oh, this again. If only we just "worked harder" and just got out there and "knocked guys on their asses" then we'd be just fine.Part two is up.
Lots of talk about "not enough hours in the day"
One would think that would lead to a simpler scheme.
I agree with you that that's what Nebraska SHOULD be, however I don't think many coaches on staff think that.We are a power running team from a variety of formations
If there was ever a question where something to the effects of "Well we are a power running team and we like to use a variety of formations. I prefer plays like.....(insert very general play for audience here)", that was it. Instead, we as readers got a wordy, ambiguous, counterpunchy reply. Kind of like our offense.CornNation (Ty): When you look at your playbook, and the plays that you have as an offensive coordinator, what do you consider your bread and butter type plays?
Tim Beck: Defenses have really changed over the years in college football, just like offenses. Offenses have become fast-paced or "gimmicky" in what they do. What we call "reading", or we don't block somebody, but we basically react to what the defense does.
Because of that, teams have also become very gimmicky defensively. So, we're more predicated out of a zone concept where you have area blocking as opposed to man blocking because the men move so much and change so much that there's probably not enough time in the day to go over every single scenario.
So it's kind of like a zone defense in basketball, no matter what offense they run you've got to cover it and then as the game goes on, we make adjustments and could go to some of our man schemes and things like that once we figure out, "What are they really trying to do to us?"
Kind of hard to read on when the first sentence says he coached at UNOPatently false.The only time in history that we've ran an option offense was under Frank Solich.
http://culturecrossfire.com/sports/football/chalk-dust-xs-and-os-examining-tom-osbornes-i-formation-offense/#.U7L9EDi9KSM