Red_October
New member
Hide and watch....he left OSU to do exactly that.Riley will not change what he does...

Hide and watch....he left OSU to do exactly that.Riley will not change what he does...
He left so he could change schemes? That's a non sequitur and appears to be factually incorrect.Hide and watch....he left OSU to do exactly that.Riley will not change what he does...![]()
I honestly thought a lot of Husker fans admired what Stanford has been running for several years now, through multiple QBs and coaches and meaningful winning seasons.Interestingly, only 2 OLmen who started while Luck was there were drafted and only one of them is still in the NFL. No other OL starters from those Stanford OLs were drafted (three underclassmen who played part time while Luck was there did get drafted and are still in the NFL).+1 on this. If the QB can get the other team to not have 9 guys in the box then he has accomplished the first step in setting up the running game. Add in a O-line similar to Stanford and everybody on this board can be happy about our run stats, while still having a passing QB.I'm thinking of an Andrew Luck. Or lots of other pro-style QBs. If by being pro-style, it means you can do three and five step drops, quickly see the field and plays developing, scramble just enough to avoid the rush, and complete passes to one of your multiple options at receiver, that's nothing but good for any offensive scheme.
It means you can also hand it off to your running backs, who will only benefit by having a passing threat at QB to keep the defense unstacked.
Luck would have huge passing games at Stanford. The next week they'd run the ball down the defense's throat. He could throw 18 or 40 times a game, depending on what the defense showed them. I don't think anyone stayed awake counting the run/pass ratios or asking themselves if they were a pass-first team. Either way, they had a great offensive line.
I'd prefer something like that.
Perhaps it's more about the system there than the athletes at OL.
Also, why are we aspiring to be Stanford offensively? They had great run of offensive success with Luck, finishing top 11 in offensive scoring each season he played. Since Luck left, they've been in the 70s, 50s, and 18th in offensive scoring.
Hardly numbers to aspire to, imo.
Maybe the key is to recruit a once in a generation QB....
Gotta correct you there.Interestingly, only 2 OLmen who started while Luck was there were drafted and only one of them is still in the NFL.
And for every Tommie Frazier there are 30 Cody Green's.The problem blem with your line is f thinking Guy is that for every Andrew Luck there are 30 Harrison Becks. Sure you will be good when you have great QB play and when you don't..... Back to 6-6.
I've appreciated some of their results, especially compared to what they were doing 15 years ago.I honestly thought a lot of Husker fans admired what Stanford has been running for several years now, through multiple QBs and coaches and meaningful winning seasons.Interestingly, only 2 OLmen who started while Luck was there were drafted and only one of them is still in the NFL. No other OL starters from those Stanford OLs were drafted (three underclassmen who played part time while Luck was there did get drafted and are still in the NFL).+1 on this. If the QB can get the other team to not have 9 guys in the box then he has accomplished the first step in setting up the running game. Add in a O-line similar to Stanford and everybody on this board can be happy about our run stats, while still having a passing QB.I'm thinking of an Andrew Luck. Or lots of other pro-style QBs. If by being pro-style, it means you can do three and five step drops, quickly see the field and plays developing, scramble just enough to avoid the rush, and complete passes to one of your multiple options at receiver, that's nothing but good for any offensive scheme.
It means you can also hand it off to your running backs, who will only benefit by having a passing threat at QB to keep the defense unstacked.
Luck would have huge passing games at Stanford. The next week they'd run the ball down the defense's throat. He could throw 18 or 40 times a game, depending on what the defense showed them. I don't think anyone stayed awake counting the run/pass ratios or asking themselves if they were a pass-first team. Either way, they had a great offensive line.
I'd prefer something like that.
Perhaps it's more about the system there than the athletes at OL.
Also, why are we aspiring to be Stanford offensively? They had great run of offensive success with Luck, finishing top 11 in offensive scoring each season he played. Since Luck left, they've been in the 70s, 50s, and 18th in offensive scoring.
Hardly numbers to aspire to, imo.
Maybe the key is to recruit a once in a generation QB....
My bad.
Dirk just wrote about that in today's Mad Chatter. Riley will always throw a lot. With the stable of WR's he currently has and bringing in, there is plenty of reason to throw the ball around a lot.add in our latest recruit commit and there is no way we starting running that much more. He doesn't commit here otherwise.
I've been one of those people very high on Stanford's style of play in recent years.I honestly thought a lot of Husker fans admired what Stanford has been running for several years now, through multiple QBs and coaches and meaningful winning seasons.Interestingly, only 2 OLmen who started while Luck was there were drafted and only one of them is still in the NFL. No other OL starters from those Stanford OLs were drafted (three underclassmen who played part time while Luck was there did get drafted and are still in the NFL).+1 on this. If the QB can get the other team to not have 9 guys in the box then he has accomplished the first step in setting up the running game. Add in a O-line similar to Stanford and everybody on this board can be happy about our run stats, while still having a passing QB.I'm thinking of an Andrew Luck. Or lots of other pro-style QBs. If by being pro-style, it means you can do three and five step drops, quickly see the field and plays developing, scramble just enough to avoid the rush, and complete passes to one of your multiple options at receiver, that's nothing but good for any offensive scheme.
It means you can also hand it off to your running backs, who will only benefit by having a passing threat at QB to keep the defense unstacked.
Luck would have huge passing games at Stanford. The next week they'd run the ball down the defense's throat. He could throw 18 or 40 times a game, depending on what the defense showed them. I don't think anyone stayed awake counting the run/pass ratios or asking themselves if they were a pass-first team. Either way, they had a great offensive line.
I'd prefer something like that.
Perhaps it's more about the system there than the athletes at OL.
Also, why are we aspiring to be Stanford offensively? They had great run of offensive success with Luck, finishing top 11 in offensive scoring each season he played. Since Luck left, they've been in the 70s, 50s, and 18th in offensive scoring.
Hardly numbers to aspire to, imo.
Maybe the key is to recruit a once in a generation QB....
My bad.
By that logic, had we added a running back today, that would be proof positive we are committed to running the ball.add in our latest recruit commit and there is no way we starting running that much more. He doesn't commit here otherwise.
Do you think KJ decided on NU because Riley is such a nice guy? In part, yes. But don't think for a second he's not been told he'll play a feature role in the pass first system that Riley has employed throughout his career. I highly doubt Riley will recruit a "feature back" at NU.By that logic, had we added a running back today, that would be proof positive we are committed to running the ball.add in our latest recruit commit and there is no way we starting running that much more. He doesn't commit here otherwise.