Listening to Bennings Description of His Interview with Langs

[cm husker]

Hmmm it's titled something about hockey and it's from yesterday.

 

[zoogs]

So the plan is to do the Tim Beck "Take what the defense gives you" or "go where they aren't" thing?

Huh.

Not seeing that approach at all.

Yeah, I really don't see that. Also, Tim Beck presented his "go where they aren't" thing as an attacking style offense, a contrast to SW's "take what the defense gives you" (which is really, really standard) approach -- one of the reasons fans signed on to Beck, I thought.

What really defined Beck's approach was it was very sandlot. He'd sort of want all these things, but not to install a rigid system, I guess. This offense is far more "installed" and built on specific principles that Riley and Langs hold dear, that seems abundantly clear, all catchphrase criticisms aside. Although both coaches like creativity; Beck put in some very creative plays in his time here and that's part of why he's at tOSU.

 

[cm husker]

So the plan is to do the Tim Beck "Take what the defense gives you" or "go where they aren't" thing?

Huh.

I liked some things about Beck's system, but no, I wasn't a huge fan of changing things up in fundamental ways to "attack what a D does poorly" because that oversimplifies what D's do and why they may have struggled against one team that was especially proficient at X.
I also think people reading more into what I wrote than I mean. I'm all for a coach tweaking and continuing to develop a system. One thing that I really liked hearing is that Riley recently changed a route to make a read cleaner for a QB.

I think that type of change gets to the heart of what I believe is effective at the college level: "simplicity" and repetition until you're highly proficient and building an offense outward from a core set of plays based on certain principle of what you want your team to be.

That's what TO did. It's what Meyer and Herman do now. I think it makes it easier to get touches for your playmakers and to be overall more efficient (I think back to urban meyer explaining the epiphany he had when coaching for ND against NU and they couldn't get the ball to their best player out of their pro "package based" system).

I don't think anyone would argue that a Langs/Riley offense has a "core set of plays." It's much more modular. Much more "plug and play" from the "all you can eat buffet." We know this because people would talk about how it didn't matter what they did at OSU because they would do XYZ at Nebraska. We also know it's not based on "simplicity and reputation" as much as it's based on "what is this skill set of this player, what is the weakness of the defense and what package best exploits thoughts" (ie, a variable match up philosophy).

Again, not saying one is a stupid approach and the other isn't. But is two very different ways of approaching offensive coordinating.

 

[Redux]

So the plan is to do the Tim Beck "Take what the defense gives you" or "go where they aren't" thing?

Huh.

Not seeing that approach at all.

Yeah, I really don't see that. Also, Tim Beck presented his "go where they aren't" thing as an attacking style offense, a contrast to SW's "take what the defense gives you" (which is really, really standard) approach -- one of the reasons fans signed on to Beck, I thought.

What really defined Beck's approach was it was very sandlot. He'd sort of want all these things, but not to install a rigid system, I guess. This offense is far more "installed" and built on specific principles that Riley and Langs hold dear, that seems abundantly clear, all catchphrase criticisms aside. Although both coaches like creativity; Beck put in some very creative plays in his time here and that's part of why he's at tOSU.

Beck had the approach of "Adjust perfectly in the middle of the play, when they go left I need you to go right". It made for some memorable plays, but also a lot a lot a lot of broken down 3 and outs.

 

[Saunders]

I think that type of change gets to the heart of what I believe is effective at the college level: "simplicity" and repetition until you're highly proficient and building an offense outward from a core set of plays based on certain principle of what you want your team to be.

That's what TO did. It's what Meyer and Herman do now. I think it makes it easier to get touches for your playmakers and to be overall more efficient (I think back to urban meyer explaining the epiphany he had when coaching for ND against NU and they couldn't get the ball to their best player out of their pro "package based" system).

It's what Briles does too, and it's allowed him to plug and play QB's and they've had great success.

 

[cm husker]

Right. It's what leach does as well, so it's not necessarily based on running the ball.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Is there anything this staff does that you do like? Can we talk about that for once?

Ive talked repeatedly about how I like Riley's perspective and approach to coaching college athletes.
I'm not seeing Riley and Langs as idiots. Lots of coaches take their approach, including some of the most successful coaches. A lot of average to unsuccessful coaches do, too. I just happen to think it's hard in Nebraska circumstances to chase that approach.

You say this repeatedly, as if Nebraska is at a unique disadvantage in college football.

Nebraska's "circumstances" are no different and generally better than dozens of college football programs that manage to do pretty well by not listening to your advice.

You paint a picture of Nebraska as a place where good recruits don't want to come, and passing the ball as a rare and fancy skillset beyond our simple prairie ways. It's silly.

 

[cm husker]

Nebraska's not unique in most ways. Maybe I should expand that statement and say I don't think it works almost anywhere in CFB.

 

[cm husker]

and we should probably define what is "door pretty well."

"Pretty well" at Nebraska isn't the same level expedition as most of those "dozens of schools" you refer to.

 

[Stumpy1]

So the plan is to do the Tim Beck "Take what the defense gives you" or "go where they aren't" thing?

Huh.

I liked some things about Beck's system, but no, I wasn't a huge fan of changing things up in fundamental ways to "attack what a D does poorly" because that oversimplifies what D's do and why they may have struggled against one team that was especially proficient at X. I also think people reading more into what I wrote than I mean. I'm all for a coach tweaking and continuing to develop a system. One thing that I really liked hearing is that Riley recently changed a route to make a read cleaner for a QB. I think that type of change gets to the heart of what I believe is effective at the college level: "simplicity" and repetition until you're highly proficient and building an offense outward from a core set of plays based on certain principle of what you want your team to be.

That's what TO did. It's what Meyer and Herman do now. I think it makes it easier to get touches for your playmakers and to be overall more efficient (I think back to urban meyer explaining the epiphany he had when coaching for ND against NU and they couldn't get the ball to their best player out of their pro "package based" system). I don't think anyone would argue that a Langs/Riley offense has a "core set of plays." It's much more modular. Much more "plug and play" from the "all you can eat buffet." We know this because people would talk about how it didn't matter what they did at OSU because they would do XYZ at Nebraska. We also know it's not based on "simplicity and reputation" as much as it's based on "what is this skill set of this player, what is the weakness of the defense and what package best exploits thoughts" (ie, a variable match up philosophy).

Again, not saying one is a stupid approach and the other isn't. But is two very different ways of approaching offensive coordinating.

I'm not seeing how Riley is any different then Briles, Herman and others you have mentioned when it comes to his offense. He has ran the same offense for years no matter who he had for playmakers. Sure, he focused on more plays that got the ball in those players hands but every coach does that.

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

For saying you were a college athlete you really have no clue how sports works.

 

[Elf]

It doesn't matter. Coaches can do whatever they want. But if the goal is to win championships, maybe you should copy the winning blueprint.

And coppying the Alabama blue print wouldn't be a winning formula?Um, lol

Not for a program in Lincoln Nebraska. No.

So you are seriously sticking with the whole "only specific systems work in Lincoln" theory?

This is why people don't take you seriously.

I have a very hard time taking anyone serious who says the only system (talking football) that will work in Lincoln is Tom Osborne's offense. I always get confused on which one of his offenses they mean. Was it his pro style offense from 69 and through the 70s? Or is it the option heavy offense we ran in the 80s? Maybe its the power run mixed with the option that he ran in the 90s?

 

[cm husker]

"Works best" does not equally "only one that works."

TO spent 30 years perfecting a system best suited for championship success in Lincoln.

Seems to me that we should stick to those principles rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

 

[Redux]

"Works best" does not equally "only one that works."

TO spent 30 years perfecting a system best suited for championship success in Lincoln.

Seems to me that we should stick to those principles rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

Seriously, why is this so hard for you to grasp?

It's not a geography thing. It's a combination of right players, right staff and the right time. Being in Lincoln has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[BRV920]

I'd say it was mostly because of Osborne. Over 25 years the talent level had peaks and valleys but he was always able to win at least 9 games.