A Candid Conversation With Nebraska Offensive Coordinator Tim Beck, Parts 1 & 2

[Hayseed]

<snip> trickery that amounts to a great record against teams that can't match up in stamina and depth but falls short against top competition. Many of the yards come from running through the huge gaps caused by this oddball offense. To me the win/loss record and domination mean more than the stats.</snip>

This was said about the offense we used to run, until we won 3 out of 4 championships.

Well yes, with a few minor differences. We had about 8 strings of quality players on the sidelines back then. The option wasn't really trickery like the crazy offense that Oregon runs where it's hard to tell how to even line up against them.....back in the 70's-90's they knew what was coming most of the time and just didn't have the Jimmy's and Joe's to stop it. The more I think about these comparisons to the past and the rule changes that have occurred, I think we need to cut our present coaches some slack......I think it's harder to stack up players and dominate now. Let's also give Charlie McBride way more credit for our past success....like I said, I think we'll live or die by the defense.....and I liked the way they came together last year after a slow start.

 

[Enhance]

The style of our play has never really been a serious issue for me. I really enjoy the way Stanford plays schematically and because it looks so physical. But, from a numbers standpoint, even they don't pop off the page from us. Unless my eyes are deceiving me, both Nebraska and Stanford ran the ball exactly 584 times in 2013. Stanford managed only 100 more total rushing yards. Spread out through about 14 games, that's just more than seven yards a game. That's it.

Sadly, they threw the ball about 40 less times than us and managed to throw for a couple hundred more yards. But, TA wasn't exactly a great passer last year.

I only bring this up to ensure people aren't arguing for a different style of offense simply because it produces better on the field. Certainly we can look at more than yards to analyze the offense, but the numbers themselves don't suggest anything radical.

Turnovers have still been the biggest problem over the last several years, coupled with a less than stellar defense. Shoring up the turnovers and getting the defense back up to snuff is far more important than what our offensive style is.

 

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Time of possession, wearing down defenses and helping our defense should be the biggest thing about our offense. Our current offense isn't really helping.

 

[HuskerShark]

We are a power running team from a variety of formations

I agree with you that that's what Nebraska SHOULD be, however I don't think many coaches on staff think that.

Consider this:

CornNation (Ty): When you look at your playbook, and the plays that you have as an offensive coordinator, what do you consider your bread and butter type plays?

Tim Beck: Defenses have really changed over the years in college football, just like offenses. Offenses have become fast-paced or "gimmicky" in what they do. What we call "reading", or we don't block somebody, but we basically react to what the defense does.

Because of that, teams have also become very gimmicky defensively. So, we're more predicated out of a zone concept where you have area blocking as opposed to man blocking because the men move so much and change so much that there's probably not enough time in the day to go over every single scenario.

So it's kind of like a zone defense in basketball, no matter what offense they run you've got to cover it and then as the game goes on, we make adjustments and could go to some of our man schemes and things like that once we figure out, "What are they really trying to do to us?"

If there was ever a question where something to the effects of "Well we are a power running team and we like to use a variety of formations. I prefer plays like.....(insert very general play for audience here)", that was it. Instead, we as readers got a wordy, ambiguous, counterpunchy reply. Kind of like our offense.

Especially when you consider this.

http://www.cornnation.com/2008/9/24/620723/tom-osborne-on-offensive-p

Clear. Concise. Focus.

I think every aspect of the football program would benefit from that.

That is perfect. Exactly how football should be played on offense.

 

[HuskerShark]

I am in total agreeance with NUpolo8 on this one. As it is, with the right play calling, our offense has the capability to wear down the opponent, play up-tempo, and pound the rock.

The issue I have with Tim Beck, as NUpolo8 is trying to express (I think), is that he doesn't recognize that as a strength of ours. That is why 1) when asked what our bread and butter is, he responds with an answer like he did, and 2) When we get to Saturdays, that shows up, and that's why there is very little flow to our offense.

In my opinion, the best offenses (whether it be football, basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.) are ones that don't wait to react to what the defense does. Instead, they are the ones who dictate what the defense will be allowed to do against them. That's what 90s Nebraska did extremely well, and not only is it effective, but it's also really fun to watch.

 

[NUpolo8]

I am in total agreeance with NUpolo8 on this one. As it is, with the right play calling, our offense has the capability to wear down the opponent, play up-tempo, and pound the rock.

The issue I have with Tim Beck, as NUpolo8 is trying to express (I think), is that he doesn't recognize that as a strength of ours. That is why 1) when asked what our bread and butter is, he responds with an answer like he did, and 2) When we get to Saturdays, that shows up, and that's why there is very little flow to our offense.

In my opinion, the best offenses (whether it be football, basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.) are ones that don't wait to react to what the defense does. Instead, they are the ones who dictate what the defense will be allowed to do against them. That's what 90s Nebraska did extremely well, and not only is it effective, but it's also really fun to watch.

Have some +1's.

 

[TheSker]

I am in total agreeance with NUpolo8 on this one. As it is, with the right play calling, our offense has the capability to wear down the opponent, play up-tempo, and pound the rock.

The issue I have with Tim Beck, as NUpolo8 is trying to express (I think), is that he doesn't recognize that as a strength of ours. That is why 1) when asked what our bread and butter is, he responds with an answer like he did, and 2) When we get to Saturdays, that shows up, and that's why there is very little flow to our offense.

In my opinion, the best offenses (whether it be football, basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.) are ones that don't wait to react to what the defense does. Instead, they are the ones who dictate what the defense will be allowed to do against them. That's what 90s Nebraska did extremely well, and not only is it effective, but it's also really fun to watch.

We take what we want

 

[kchusker_chris]

Another note, Nebraska was 77th in time of possession last year, we are making the defense work on short rest and not producing long, grinding drives. In comparison the other teams we are talking about are all in the top 30 except for Auburn who's defense was atrocious most of the year.

Agree 100%. I had stated before that the coaches need to decide if they want a top 10 defense, or fast paced offense. Because it seems that they can't co-exist.

I think you're right. And I'd take the defense any day. It wouldn't have taken much in 2009 or 2010 to get to 11. But it would have taken a 95ish offense to get us to 11 wins the last couple of years with that D. I'd rather lose four by a handful of points, than lose 4 the way we've been doing it. Those early offenses of Bo's we ugly, but the games themselves were always within reach. They weren't turning the ball over in our territory half a dozen times a game (exageration I know).

 

[Saunders]

In my opinion, the best offenses (whether it be football, basketball, baseball, soccer, etc.) are ones that don't wait to react to what the defense does. Instead, they are the ones who dictate what the defense will be allowed to do against them. That's what 90s Nebraska did extremely well, and not only is it effective, but it's also really fun to watch.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the option is specifically predicated on reacting to what the defense does, and countering the Defense by going where they are not.

So... what are we asking for?

 

[Saunders]

Another note, Nebraska was 77th in time of possession last year, we are making the defense work on short rest and not producing long, grinding drives. In comparison the other teams we are talking about are all in the top 30 except for Auburn who's defense was atrocious most of the year.

Agree 100%. I had stated before that the coaches need to decide if they want a top 10 defense, or fast paced offense. Because it seems that they can't co-exist.

I think you're right. And I'd take the defense any day. It wouldn't have taken much in 2009 or 2010 to get to 11. But it would have taken a 95ish offense to get us to 11 wins the last couple of years with that D. I'd rather lose four by a handful of points, than lose 4 the way we've been doing it. Those early offenses of Bo's we ugly, but the games themselves were always within reach. They weren't turning the ball over in our territory half a dozen times a game (exageration I know).

Except that damn Iowa State game..... But yeah, that's where I'm at.

 

[Landlord]

The best fancy passing team in the country, Oregon,

Would you fellas believe we rushed the ball as many times as Stanford and they had one extra game, or that we had more rushing attempts than Alabama, Michigan State, and Wisconsin?

lol no. we don't have an identity and don't run the option or run the football powerfully.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but the option is specifically predicated on reacting to what the defense does, and countering the Defense by going where they are not.

So... what are we asking for?

You're not wrong, which is why the idea of "take what we want" is really one of the most ignorant perspectives I've ever seen in regards to football, from my own ignorant perspective. I have no idea what people are asking for. I mean I guess the 1995 Nebraska superhero demigods were able to do it, but in general when you have a team of mortals like everyone else does, it makes perfect sense to me to go to the right when a defense is lined up to the left.

 

[Mavric]

Count me in the camp that if it can work in Palo Alto, CA, Auburn AL, Madison WI and Tuscaloosa it can work here. Again.

I'm sick of the counter punching offense.

Because having a run heavy offense, the conference's top rusher, and the nation's #9 rusher who is only behind someone from one of the schools you listed isn't working. Not to mention we rank 3 spots behind those dudes from Palo Alto and 5 spots ahead of the boys from Tuscaloosa all with our 1-2 rushing combo being reduced to a 1 for the majority of the season.

Those schools have an identity. Nebraska does not.

Sorry if I missed this but what is their identity?

 

[papersun87]

^Really?

Stanford = run first pro style

Auburn = spread the field and run

Wisconsin = power run

Alabama = pass first pro style

 

[Mavric]

^Really?

Stanford = run first pro style

Auburn = spread the field and run

Wisconsin = power run

Alabama = pass first pro style

I thought we were advocating a power running game. But Alabama is pass first?

What would be the difference between Auburn's "identity" and ours?

 

[NUpolo8]

^Really?

Stanford = run first pro style

Auburn = spread the field and run

Wisconsin = power run

Alabama = pass first pro style

I thought we were advocating a power running game. But Alabama is pass first?

What would be the difference between Auburn's "identity" and ours?

It exists.