SBNation: Scott Frost is perfect for a possible Nebraska opening, but here’s who should be No. 2 on the list

TGHusker said:
That is why it was such a thing of beauty to watch - execution, execution.  We had the discipline to run it and make it successful even if the D knew what was coming.  Of course, if we have all of the undisciplined off side, false start penalties we've seen to have had for the last 10 years, it won't work. 
Click to expand...
Yes, it was beautiful when the offensive talent was awesome in the mid 90's, especially 95 and 97. TO's offense struggled against good defenses like any other offense though.

 
TGHusker said:
Yes, I know parody has sunk in --  so many programs can and are successful these days.  We didn't keep up.
Click to expand...
True, it sucks to watch everybody build and innovate and we keep plummeting into complete irrelevance.  Really hopping a new staff and turn things around.

 
I don't mind Tom Herman's power spread offense but honestly I'd much rather bring in someone like Troy Calhoun who still has an option-based offense but has featured zone blocking and vertical passing (though hardly passed again Michigan last week).  His offense is not like that of other service academies.  He would be able to open things up to a lot more with the talent Nebraska would have compared to what he has at Air Force.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is something to be said for doing things differently.  You can recruit players that other programs may be overlooking.  Players that fit your system.

Do we really want to be like the majority of other Big 10 teams on offense?  That's where I see us heading now.  Can we out recruit those teams for the same players in their own back yard?  What about players in their own back yard that fit our system but not theirs?

 
BartonHusker said:
That may be true when it comes to some with concerns about option football (which I still believe can and should be ran) but it shouldn't matter when it comes to running power.  That would be telling Wisconsin, Michigan, Stanford, Iowa, Oregon, etc. that they need to change their offenses because of safety concerns.  Sooner than later everyone will just be running some soft crap spread with flags. 
Click to expand...


Thats exactly what's happening. Some lobby to go so far as eliminating the 3 point stance, which at that point you're basically not playing football anymore, IMO.

 
The majority of the B1G (for sure west) run a certain style of offense for a reason.  It is what is easiest to recruit to base wise (all starts up front) and you don't have to be so speed depended across the board.  You're not trying to out quick everyone but just trying to physically dominate them.  Right now we don't out quick or out physical anyone period. 

 
brophog said:
Thats exactly what's happening. Some lobby to go so far as eliminating the 3 point stance, which at that point you're basically not playing football anymore, IMO.
Click to expand...
When that time comes, we can worry about it then.  In the present, run something that fits your base and gives you the best opportunity to win.  I have yet to be proven wrong about a spread ever working in Lincoln, Nebraska.  If we are going to hire someone to run a spread type of offense, it better be a Joe Moorhead. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
God, can you imagine being Lee if that happened? He'd be looking at the exact situation he just transferred to get away from!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BartonHusker said:
When that time comes, we can worry about it then.
Click to expand...


I don't think I'm being clear enough....we are already there. The NCAA already recommends one day a week of full contact. You may not get next season's offense installed before that becomes mandatory. Big changes are coming, and very soon. 

But we we are getting off point here. The original point is, whatever you run is only as good as you practice it. What offense we run isn't failing, how we prepare to be able to execute it, is.

 
I'm not even sure what you call our 'offense.' They say 'pro,' but it's hard to see any kind of equivalent in the pros. There isn't much, if any logic in the progression of playcalls from Langsdorf. We run it twice to set up 3rd and 2, and then try to hit Morgan 30 yards down on the sideline.

As many have been saying, the system isn't the real issue. It's about who is coaching it, and whether they know what they're looking at, and know what to exploit. It's about coaches who know how to talk to college kids, give them one job, and hold them accountable. It's about having a real depth chart, and putting in a backup when the starter simply isn't cutting it - that's when kids really start to focus, when they know even though they might be one of the biggest guys on the field, their starting spot isn't etched in stone.

Lastly, pare down the playbook. These kids have school, girls, cars, and parties (unfortunately) in their heads. Keep the formations and concepts simple, if they're thinking so much, no way can they play fast.

An option guy would be pretty cool, though, just saying.

 
I don't give a rat what system we run as long as we run it well.  It is so depressing watching our O-line get beat play after play.  Our only decent runs come from amazing broken tackles- not from giant holes my old legs could run through.  

 
zoogs said:
I sure hope we don't bet the house on the guy who has built his career on beating Tulsa, SMU, Memphis, and East Carolina. 

If we do, fine. Brace yourselves for a lot of "be patient, he and his staff are just transitioning to P5 conference play". Sometimes it works. Could do worse, I suppose.
Click to expand...




If we hire Frost that's what his career will be built on. That's what most coaches careers are built on until they get a P5 job.

I don't think the dive option offense is right for us fwiw. It's a nice equalizer but it's also a limiting factor in getting talent. A spread run/option offense more like Urban Meyer or even Chip Kelly/Frost make more sense.

 
BigRedBuster said:
There is no reason why we need to completely change once again the types of offensive players we need which would see yet another couple years of transition.

There is no reason why we can't run a power running offense similar to Wisconsin, MSU, Stanford...etc. here.  That would utilize many of the players we already have in the system. It would allow us to actually be able to have a passing game and not trying to use an RB as a QB.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The Nebraska offense  hasn't been that different between the last three OCs, or that far off some of the teams we aspire to be -- at least in terms of playcalling. Almost every team runs the ball more often when the running game is working and/or you don't have to play from behind. Nebraska's defense has often put us in a hole, and the offensive line is far from the power running OL of old. This exact same offense could run more and pass less with better linemen on both sides of the ball, and that's been an ongoing priority at schools like Wisconsin, MSU and Stanford.

 
Back
Top