Riley on What He's Looking for in QBs

[Guy Chamberlin]

If it makes everyone feel better, I think Riley is being both honest and diplomatic.

He's smart enough to know that his only experienced QB is a running threat, and honest enough to realize how handy that skillset woulda been at Oregon State. Of course you want the whole enchilada, and if your Quarterback Whispering can get a 5% higher completion rate, and six fewer interceptions from Tommy Armstrong, you don't have to reinvent the entire offense your first season.

If Riley is monitoring the general mood of Huskerland, he knows that our championship memories are built around running quarterbacks and run-first offenses, and the coaching change wasn't driven by our sudden desire for a pro-style offense.

He's leaving all his options open and keeping the fan freakout to a minimum.

It's a good plan.

 

[Mavric]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.

I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

I am right, you would be thrilled if NU went 14-0 this season using the QB Sneak offense. We all would.

Speak for yourself. If we lose that 15th game because they finally stopped the sneak, I'd be pissed.

 

[teachercd]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.

I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

I am right, you would be thrilled if NU went 14-0 this season using the QB Sneak offense. We all would.

Speak for yourself. If we lose that 15th game because they finally stopped the sneak, I'd be pissed.

Ha! Imagine what that DC would be called from the team that stopped it! "Genius new scheme stops the vaunted sneak"

 

[Count 'Bility]

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Gross. I hate the typical NFL offense. True, me and you could never be friends after reading that.
I LOVE the zone read, you can run it so many different ways. Understanding that is when the spread/zone read gets fun. For me anyway.

Second bolded (edit): It's not about having RB's to tote the job. Having a QB being able to run the ball gives you a numbers advantage when a play is executed perfectly. Most plays are designed to give the ball carrier a one on one with an unblocked corner/safety. When using the QB as the ball carrier, for example, on QB Iso, the tailback becomes the lead blocker etc...

I could talk scheme for days but I won't bore you with that.

Fullbacks make great lead blockers. I formation all day long.

Are you just purposely not understanding what he's saying? In a typical I formation when the FB is the lead blocker for the RB, there is an inherent numbers disadvantage for the offense because the QB does nothing besides hand the ball off. In the zone read, the QB acts as the RB, allowing for more overall blockers and an easier way to get a numbers advantage.

No. I get what he's saying. Its not a complicating theory.f#*k, when I come to this place anymore, all I wanna do is punch somebody in their f'ing mouth.

I completly agree. Everytime I saw the QB in a shotgun set in the redzone. I wanted to beat Pelini & Becks head into a wall. Why not let your RB run down hill with a lead blocker. A team that can control the clock & the run game will win a lot of football games.

its not shotgun its pistol. And its quicker in getting the ball to your backs than being under center. Its quicker in getting into your action. Its why it was invented and became so popular and is widely used. Almost exclusively. Also, the fullback position is pretty much dead. Its about Hbacks. Flex guys that kick out and trap allowing lineman to release and take advantage of excellent angles. Watch what Ohio st did to oregon with their hback on that inside counter they ran umpteen million times in a row to close out the title game.

you're correct true. And my comments are not directed at you. I know you know what you want and are talking about. Im just speaking at a wide generalization that we need to get back to the 5-10 230 lb fullback with a 6 inch neck roll slammin himself into muddle linebackers all day. Thats the perception i said is dead. I know wed want to get back to it but frankly the games isnt played straight ahead anymore. Even the "throwback", "direct" or "conventional" offenses we see and label as such today use a lot more lateral concept than offenses of the ultra past. Its been dictated bythe evolution of the game and the evolution of defenses and the athletes.
H-Backs are a spinoff of the fullback position in all reality. A fullback/TE hybrid. I love the use of the H-Back that Oho St. utilizes. Again, they utilize a north and south inside zone a lot more than we ever did it seems. I think Janovich or Cross could be a lot of fun to see in an H-Back role. Blum may be a good one too. Watching the spring game it looked like we used the H-Back a bit although I can't altogeher remember how much. I would love this to be a big part of what we do going forward.

 

[Enhance]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.
I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

Mayweather vs Pacquiao - a lot of people were so frustrated that Mayweather won the way he won. Defensive, tactical, intelligent. He takes opportunities when they present themselves. He is 48-0.

Other boxers may be more exciting, but they're not undefeated.

Teams/individual can win sports in a variety of ways. His example about QB sneaking for 6 yards a carry was hyperbolic. The idea that a team should be more aesthetically pleasing for the sake of being eye candy is silly, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

 

[True2tRA]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

Mayweather vs Pacquiao - a lot of people were so frustrated that Mayweather won the way he won. Defensive, tactical, intelligent. He takes opportunities when they present themselves. He is 48-0.
Other boxers may be more exciting, but they're not undefeated.

Teams/individual can win sports in a variety of ways. His example about QB sneaking for 6 yards a carry was hyperbolic. The idea that a team should be more aesthetically pleasing for the sake of being eye candy is silly, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

No, execution is paramount for me. I just don't like to agree with teachercd so I avoid it as much as I can.

 

[Mavric]

No, execution is paramount for me. I just don't like to agree with teachercd so I avoid it as much as I can.

So, you're a Pelini fan then?

 

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.
I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

Mayweather vs Pacquiao - a lot of people were so frustrated that Mayweather won the way he won. Defensive, tactical, intelligent. He takes opportunities when they present themselves. He is 48-0.

Other boxers may be more exciting, but they're not undefeated.

Teams/individual can win sports in a variety of ways. His example about QB sneaking for 6 yards a carry was hyperbolic. The idea that a team should be more aesthetically pleasing for the sake of being eye candy is silly, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

You know, there are some sports (well, soccer in particular) where aesthetics are a part of the equation.

Everyone wants to win, and rightly so. But there are 2 camps of thought in the sport on how a team goes about winning; google Menotistas vs Bilardistas.

You would fall under the Bilardista style, and I would probably be Menotista.

 

[Enhance]

Execution and aesthetics are a part of every sport, even in my boxing example. But, strategy is as well. If a strategy works and it leads to a victory, and it falls within fair rules of the game, then there's nothing wrong with it in my opinion. If you can get six yards with a pass, or you know you can get six yards with a run, choosing one over the other is strategy.

I would prefer something that looks good and produces results, but I think most people would agree that results are the ultimate deciding factor. If that means it doesn't have to look pretty, I can accept that.

 

[HuskerMerc44]

the more I read on this staff the more I like the change. lets hope it means more wins. these qb s we have now have to be excited for some quality coaching by guys who know what they are doing.

This was my thought too, coming off reading OP's post.

While it is possible that my red tinted sunglasses are on full blast right now, but at the same time... this staff just makes me feel good.

 

[Redux]

All I care about in a QB:

Does the ball get to the receiver?

If the play breaks down, can he adjust?

Can he hang on to the ball?

Can he pick up a 1st down if no open receiver?

Is he tough or does he need super protection?

Is he a smart player of the game and position?

I dont care about his throwing motion, his speed when running or his supposed skill set. As long as he gets the system, hangs on to the ball, delivers the ball to a team mate, and can pick up enough yards to keep drives alive the rest will sort itself out.

Bag on Tebow all you want but the guy understood what he needed to do to get yards, score points and win games. Id love to get a Husker into the NFL but first and foremost I want one that puts us back into the college football worlds eye so we can sign a recruit that could be the NFL QB we one day send.

 

[swmohusker]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.
I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

Mayweather vs Pacquiao - a lot of people were so frustrated that Mayweather won the way he won. Defensive, tactical, intelligent. He takes opportunities when they present themselves. He is 48-0.

Other boxers may be more exciting, but they're not undefeated.

Teams/individual can win sports in a variety of ways. His example about QB sneaking for 6 yards a carry was hyperbolic. The idea that a team should be more aesthetically pleasing for the sake of being eye candy is silly, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

You know, there are some sports (well, soccer in particular) where aesthetics are a part of the equation.

Everyone wants to win, and rightly so. But there are 2 camps of thought in the sport on how a team goes about winning; google Menotistas vs Bilardistas.

You would fall under the Bilardista style, and I would probably be Menotista.

You lost me at soccer

 

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.
I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

Mayweather vs Pacquiao - a lot of people were so frustrated that Mayweather won the way he won. Defensive, tactical, intelligent. He takes opportunities when they present themselves. He is 48-0.

Other boxers may be more exciting, but they're not undefeated.

Teams/individual can win sports in a variety of ways. His example about QB sneaking for 6 yards a carry was hyperbolic. The idea that a team should be more aesthetically pleasing for the sake of being eye candy is silly, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

You know, there are some sports (well, soccer in particular) where aesthetics are a part of the equation.

Everyone wants to win, and rightly so. But there are 2 camps of thought in the sport on how a team goes about winning; google Menotistas vs Bilardistas.

You would fall under the Bilardista style, and I would probably be Menotista.

You lost me at soccer

The point is that some people value aesthetics over wins, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Hammerhead]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.
I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

Mayweather vs Pacquiao - a lot of people were so frustrated that Mayweather won the way he won. Defensive, tactical, intelligent. He takes opportunities when they present themselves. He is 48-0.

Other boxers may be more exciting, but they're not undefeated.

Teams/individual can win sports in a variety of ways. His example about QB sneaking for 6 yards a carry was hyperbolic. The idea that a team should be more aesthetically pleasing for the sake of being eye candy is silly, unless I'm misunderstanding you.

I think most people are pissed that Mayweather won because he's a douchebag, but that's another story.

 

[teachercd]

A ha! So I was right...