lo country
Mods
Still boggles the mind. Last game as a Husker. Heart and soul of the O, had shown the ability to go beast mode and not a touch. In a slug fest of a game....
Change Scheme or Change QB?
- Thread starter MichiganDad3
- Start date
RedDenver
New member
I think Fulmer's success says more about the other players on that team than the QB. It's not like they went from a pro offense with Manning to the triple option with Martin. Perhaps what we should be saying is that the offensive line and defense matter a great deal more than the scheme or QB experience.
MichiganDad3
New member
MichiganDad3
New member
I have always believed that the OL and DL are the most important parts of a team. I am still intrigued that Fulmer reduced the number of pass attempts by 44%, and still won a national championship. That is a drastic change to any offense.
84HuskerLaw
New member
Tennessee had good teams both seasons but Payton ran into the Huskers and he was gimpy that night which didn't hurt the Huskers' cause.
Fulmer was a good coach but got fired for lack of accomplishments so perhaps one can't overstate his ability. As to who was better (Manning vs Martin?) I would sugges the many years since would answer that. Now, college football is NOT the same as the pros and the fundamental issue many Husker fans have with the West Coast or other 'pro' style offenses is that they don't tend to be as potent as the sandlot style of many college offenses (wishbone, Osbone, veer, fun and gun, etc.). The use of running QBs in the NFL has really expanded in the past decade or so but it is not unheard of. Fran Tarkenton and even to a modest extent Joe Montana and John Elway used their legs now and then to make defenses pay. Scrambling and avoiding the rush are all but critical for a QB. Dan Marino is the most successful "statue" QB but he threw more incompletions than almost any other QB in history as well.
I believe Riley would like a great thrower who can buy time and avoid the initial rush and now and then run the ball forward for a few 'extra' yars (beyond the line of scrimmage basically). Anything beyond that would be purely coincidental to Riley really. However, even an old dog can learn a new trick now and then and I think Riley has seen enough of the advantages of a strong running QB that he would affirmatively seek out a great passer with running ability. But one must have depth of 'starting' level QBs which is certainly not the situation in Lincoln (yet). If POB and the next good QB we sign this year) both turn out to be the real deal, one can expect Riley to feel far more comfortable in letting the QB run aggressively, atleast 6 or 8 times a game in the critical games.
Fulmer was a good coach but got fired for lack of accomplishments so perhaps one can't overstate his ability. As to who was better (Manning vs Martin?) I would sugges the many years since would answer that. Now, college football is NOT the same as the pros and the fundamental issue many Husker fans have with the West Coast or other 'pro' style offenses is that they don't tend to be as potent as the sandlot style of many college offenses (wishbone, Osbone, veer, fun and gun, etc.). The use of running QBs in the NFL has really expanded in the past decade or so but it is not unheard of. Fran Tarkenton and even to a modest extent Joe Montana and John Elway used their legs now and then to make defenses pay. Scrambling and avoiding the rush are all but critical for a QB. Dan Marino is the most successful "statue" QB but he threw more incompletions than almost any other QB in history as well.
I believe Riley would like a great thrower who can buy time and avoid the initial rush and now and then run the ball forward for a few 'extra' yars (beyond the line of scrimmage basically). Anything beyond that would be purely coincidental to Riley really. However, even an old dog can learn a new trick now and then and I think Riley has seen enough of the advantages of a strong running QB that he would affirmatively seek out a great passer with running ability. But one must have depth of 'starting' level QBs which is certainly not the situation in Lincoln (yet). If POB and the next good QB we sign this year) both turn out to be the real deal, one can expect Riley to feel far more comfortable in letting the QB run aggressively, atleast 6 or 8 times a game in the critical games.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
It's not like the offense needs an overhaul, or that Tommy is even misused.
Tommy can win games with his arm or his legs. He can lose games with his poor decisions. He can hand the ball off to a stable of running backs that are -- to be charitable -- a bit below Nebraska standards. The defense doesn't always hold up its end of the bargain.
It's not the offense that's confusing him. The offense isn't that complicated, really. It's not that Tommy can't throw a beautiful and sometimes remarkable pass, because he's done that plenty of times.
It's that Tommy so quickly defaults to playground ball. Because sometimes that's what works. But sometimes it's just reckless and ill-advised, and that's what drives coaches crazy.
Mike Riley inherited Tommy Armstrong, and correctly figured out that Tommy is Nebraska's best chance to win. That probably won't change this year. But hopefully some adjustments to the game plan will be made, probably building off the UCLA model.
Every team runs and passes the ball. When Nebraska was switching out the very different Armstrong and Ron Kellogg III between games, quarters and even series, the offense made the adjustments on the fly. Armstrong appeared to have the better skillset, but neither required a schematic overhaul to make his case. If Patrick O'Brien is a quarterback who can hit more open receivers, and still hand off to his running backs, Nebraska will make that shift in a heartbeat.
Mike Riley coached three running backs to 3,500+ career yards at OSU and recruited a fourth, Stevan Jackson. He doesn't hate running the ball. By his own admission he's new to the running quarterback. Nebraska's dilemma of talented but inconsistent dual threat quarterbacks is hardly unique, and OCs around both the NCAA and the NFL are still trying to figure out that formula.
Tommy can win games with his arm or his legs. He can lose games with his poor decisions. He can hand the ball off to a stable of running backs that are -- to be charitable -- a bit below Nebraska standards. The defense doesn't always hold up its end of the bargain.
It's not the offense that's confusing him. The offense isn't that complicated, really. It's not that Tommy can't throw a beautiful and sometimes remarkable pass, because he's done that plenty of times.
It's that Tommy so quickly defaults to playground ball. Because sometimes that's what works. But sometimes it's just reckless and ill-advised, and that's what drives coaches crazy.
Mike Riley inherited Tommy Armstrong, and correctly figured out that Tommy is Nebraska's best chance to win. That probably won't change this year. But hopefully some adjustments to the game plan will be made, probably building off the UCLA model.
Every team runs and passes the ball. When Nebraska was switching out the very different Armstrong and Ron Kellogg III between games, quarters and even series, the offense made the adjustments on the fly. Armstrong appeared to have the better skillset, but neither required a schematic overhaul to make his case. If Patrick O'Brien is a quarterback who can hit more open receivers, and still hand off to his running backs, Nebraska will make that shift in a heartbeat.
Mike Riley coached three running backs to 3,500+ career yards at OSU and recruited a fourth, Stevan Jackson. He doesn't hate running the ball. By his own admission he's new to the running quarterback. Nebraska's dilemma of talented but inconsistent dual threat quarterbacks is hardly unique, and OCs around both the NCAA and the NFL are still trying to figure out that formula.
Waterloohusker26
New member
How many offensive minded head coaches have you seen make a complete overhaul of their offense
ColoradoHusk
Donor
I don't know of any actually. That's why any talk of Riley completely changing his offense is crazy-talk.
I think the balance that most coaches are looking for are total yards being 50/50 not total plays.
ColoradoHusk
Donor
Not really. When Riley looks for balance, he's looking for play calling balance. Inherently, a typical pass plays are going to produce more yards than a typical run play, so a team will have to call a lot of run plays, or their running game would have to be awesome to be 50-50 in terms of yardage, and not play calls.
Also, I am going to call BS on WCO QB's/teams completing 80% of passes. Wouldn't that be some type of record, and that's certainly not typical.
EDIT: Here are the records for career passing percentages in NCAA history. 70% is the tops.
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/leaders/pass-cmp-pct-player-career.html
Last edited by a moderator:
You could be right, however I feel on at least a couple occasions Riley mentioned in interviews the yardage stats and said something to the idea that he liked the balance. You are correct that pass plays that are successful typically net more yards then runs, however incomplete passes count as zero. If running stats netted 5.5-6 yards per carry and a teams average pass completion was 15-17 yards (with 60% completion) then the run / pass ratio for play calling wouldn't be that far off about 3 / 2. If a game got 70 offensive plays that would put it at about 43 runs and 27 passes.
Last edited by a moderator:
QMany
New member
We had 4-5 4* running backs at our disposal last year. The talent wasn't particularly below Nebraska's standards, the men developing them and deciding how and how often to give them the ball were.
84HuskerLaw
New member
If you are suggesting I said WCO teams complete 80% of their passes I most certainly did NOT. So don't "BS" me on that one. I said that when a team does complete that many in a given situation, it will be because they are throwing lots of short passes which are high percentage ones. We've had QBs complete fairly high percentages for their careers but they have thrown a disproportionately large portion of their completions to the short receiver or even RBs. Those pile up the completion stats but often don't pile up the big gains or yardage. You throw enough passes you will add up to yardage but in my view every rushing yard is worth two passing yards in terms of game winning effect. Roughly. Teams who rush for 300 yards a game win a very high percentage of the time while teams that pass for 300 will not win nearly as high a percentage. You need about 500 yards passing to equal 300 rush yards in my view in terms of game winning dominance or effect. The first 100 yards of rushing is certainly double the value of first hundred passing.