Calling out all Frost Supporters

Jeremy said:
With our offense as it is now, our 2 best receivers left, and one is setting records in Kentucky. What QBs have we gotten in the last 18 years that set the world on fire? Behind this line, would Joe Burrow have gotten the Heisman?
Click to expand...
There have been no winning power 5 teams who have ran the ball more than 70% of the time since 2010.

 
Jeremy said:
Iowa can line up with a fullback and run the ball. Why can't we? 
Click to expand...
Because we don't have them on our roster.

Jeremy said:
I would contend Yant and Scott would do nearly as well behind a line that blocks like Wisconsin. They have no room with our zone-blocking, patty-cake scheme that leaves at least one linebacker unblocked on every play.
Click to expand...
I don't think you even know what zone blocking is. Wisconsin uses it plenty. Again, literally everyone uses zone blocking from highschool to NFL. It's a staple of blocking schemes and is actually better and easier than the drive blocking you raved about. It creates advantages in numbers and leverage, double teams at the point of attack, as well as accounting for LBs at the second level. 

 
ZRod said:
Because we don't have them on our roster.

I don't think you even know what zone blocking is. Wisconsin uses it plenty. Again, literally everyone uses zone blocking from highschool to NFL. It's a staple of blocking schemes and is actually better and easier than the drive blocking you raved about. It creates advantages in numbers and leverage, double teams at the point of attack, as well as accounting for LBs at the second level. 
Click to expand...
Does it really create an advantage, though? What 'numbers and leverage' did you see against Iowa? Are we really accounting for LBs at the second level? Because the actual results of what's happening on the field don't reflect what you're trying to tell me here AT ALL. The leading rusher for Nebraska this season was Adrian Martinez - by A LOT -, and a good deal of his yards came from scrambling on pass plays. Our running backs have very little space to run, and people are definitely NOT getting blocked.  

Please explain why a sane person would want to continue doing more of what we have been doing? I'm not saying to do away with zone blocking altogether - the service academies zone block every few downs, too. But we don't have a mindset of domination - like we can't block a defensive linemen unless it's 2 on 1. That's just weak.

I know that Iowa has always used zone blocking in their scheme, and it plays very well into their boot game. But, do you know what else they have? A fullback to lead block as well. What a concept.

 
Husker_Bohunk said:
How many teams in the B1G 10 run more than 70% of the time and what significant achievements have they made with their offense?

Looking at Army's record it looks like they lost both of those games. That isn't doing well in my book and in fact I'd call that losing which is exactly what we don't want for our team.
Click to expand...
Who cares what other B1G teams are doing? What significant achievements has Nebraska made with this 23 pts/game offense?

Army did lose, but they did better than Nebraska with WAY less talent in comparison. That's the point. If Army can roll into Ann Arbor or Madison and put themselves in a position to win, with their talent level, why couldn't we do better while utilizing their scheme? We have much bigger and faster guys than they do. Who says we don't roll over teams?

We had 129 yards rushing against Iowa. We're never going to win anything with 129 yards.

 
Don’t mistake improvement for underachievement. A lot of dudes this year are gonna be off to the NFL. This team should’ve gotten 7 wins. If this would’ve been last year getting new staff I would’ve been all for it. Imagine if we still had Wan’Dale & Culp doesn’t play like s#!t. Goddamn. 

 
Husker_Bohunk said:
It absolutely is absurd.

It's my opinion that folks who want us to run all the time simply want Osborne's 90's offense back. They seem to think that is the only way we've been successful while forgetting that same coach ran a pro style offense in 70 and 71. In the 70's we were sending quarterbacks to the NFL. Tagge, Ferragamo and Humm (probably forgetting a couple) at the least.
Click to expand...
The 'pro-style' offense from the 70's was still very much run-heavy. We passed, at most, 30% of the time. Don't forget that Osborne switched to an option-style look with Turner Gill because he was sick of being beat by Oklahoma and their option offense.

I don't want Osborne's 90's offense back because he's the only one who could really coach it. But there are plenty of guys who coach good, ground-based offensive attacks out there today.

 
Husker_Bohunk said:
What type of offense we run doesn't determine whether or not we are successful. It's the coaches and players that determine whether or not the team succeeds.

Ffs, no one recalls that Callahan had two winning seasons with the West Coast Offense. Or that Osborne ran a pro style offense in the 70's.

Being one dimensional only helps your opponent.
Click to expand...
I absolutely disagree with that. If we run the ball, move the sticks, work the clock, then Iowa doesn't get the ball back, and we win. Callahan's 2 winning seasons is the standard? Callahan, really? 

Osborne's 'pro-style' offense was still, at most, 30% pass. I would LOVE that kind of offense now. 

He also went away from the 'pro-style' because Oklahoma was KILLING us with the Wishbone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Husker_Bohunk said:
I want Nebraska to do well but that doesn't mean I can ignore 4 losing seasons in a row with a combined record of 15-27.
Click to expand...
And we wait until next August;  What will have changed by then?  Housing prices peak and drop?  Covid and all of its variants gone?  Smash and grab rat-brained a$$h@!es gone?  Infrastructure work finally begins?  Frost becomes magically enlightened regarding his role in record breaking losses?  

 
Back
Top