Criticism of Riley's and Langsdorf's offense is fair. Yes, they probably don't have all the necessary talent that they need to run their ideal system, but coaches need to be able to put their players in a position to succeed. There were a lot of times last year where that wasn't done with the offense.
All I'd like to know in this thread is, "what is their ideal system?"
Looks like it's "pass to set up the run" in which the QB completes at least 5% more of his throws and half the interceptions as Tommy -- which is not a huge ask. Run heavier after you force the defense of the box, and include QB, FB and TE as running weapons. Keep using WR jet sweeps as plays or just dekes to manipulate a linebacker or two. Put the ball in the hands of your most dangerous playmakers, in this case Tommy Armstrong, Jordan Westerkamp and what should have been Demornay Peirson-El, but adjusted to the emergence of Brandon Riley and Stanley Morgan, Jr. An ideal system would have had a better featured running back than Cross or Newby, who were decent but not such dangerous playmakers. Ozigbo, Wilbon or Newby himself might make the case for more carries next season. The offensive line needs to step up regardless of the system and play call.
I think Riley came to Nebraska because he wanted to do something different with better resources. We'll see.
That's a pretty good post, Guy.
I think what we might say is that this staff wants to be "
modular" (I want to get away from "
multiple" because all offenses want to be able to do a multitude of things; TO wanted to be efficient in the passing game, as it complimented what we did in the running game. He just thought that by forcing a defense to account for certain things in the run game, like a mobile QB, option and counter looks, you would "clean up" the reads in the passing game).
So,
what does "modular" mean? I think it was pretty accurately summed up on the videocast, and I think Jon did a good job touching on the problems with such an approach.
Modular means you look to create mismatches based on personnel groupings, so you have different "packages" week to week or season to season to exploit the mismatches that you identify during your game planning. I've posted with you ad nauseam why I think that's a tough approach for college kids, so I won't go into that again. I'll just say that even if a lot of teams do it, I'd argue that most aren't that great at it. I'd have to go back and look at the numbers, but I'd bet that approach rarely lands a team in the top 10 or 15 of NCAA offenses by total or scoring.
The
"system" based offenses tend to look to create mismatches in terms of numbers, either in the passing game or running game, which is why the approach changed less drastically week to week. Yes, you have to change your blocking schemes and considerations when you are facing an odd versus even front, but that's not the same as saying "our X receiver can beat their Y db, so we will install this package for him to get involved" or even the installation of a different screen pass package for defenses that attack differently.
In some ways, the "system" approach really puts the onus on the defense to change what they are doing in order to stop the "gimmick." That's why you often hear about the "pressure to prepare for an option based offense" being tougher than the week to week pressures of preparing to face a "regular" pro style offense.
I think, as was mentioned in the video, it's great in theory to be "modular" and have all these tools in the box to attack a D based on what they decide to do. I just think it's actually really really hard, week to week within the realities of CFB to do that well.
Whatever; I guess we'll see how it plays out. I just really despise seeing a very talented roster of offensive players get scapegoated. I hope people don't try that again this season (and even more so that they don't have any need to).
