Listening to Bennings Description of His Interview with Langs

I didn't say it was a controversy.

I just think the fact that they are going to change their system up to model themselves after what Minnesota does or what Kiffen does is not ideal to me. It goes beyond the topical wrinkle and tweaks an established OC may make year to year based on his own personnel. from what Benning described with the "all you can eat buffet" approach to running an offense, it really sounds like they want to be great at everything. Good in theory, but really hard to actually get there.

That said, maybe mentioning Turner and Alabama at least a signal they are going to lean heavily on the run.

It just strikes me as odd and not very efficient that in 2017, they may decide they are going to run their offense like a Brady or Luck led offense.

 
Well, there's the concept of a 'matchup offense' that morphs radically week to week; I don't think that's practiced universally in the NFL, but a few teams (New England namely) have a philosophy of it. At the college level, I'm not sure how many teams do it. I'm sure the ones that do do it at a less complex level.

And I don't see anything wrong with putting in some new plays and showing new looks for specific opponents. If that's all it is, that's not uncommon and we've been doing that all the time over the years (other side of the ball, too. And remember Purdue pulling out the 3-4 to fluster Tommy as a freshman?) It's a question of whether the offense and namely the QB can handle it, or if they're being too optimistic about that. I can see the skepticism.

 
Here's the clip: http://www.1620thezone.com/SharpandBenningPodcastPage.aspx

It's toward the back third of it.

Benning talks about how they want to put in a specific package of plays that are tailored for each WR. That's 4 to 5 different packages, per Benning.

I get that it's an approach. I just don't think it's good for continuity and overall efficiency because while it sounds great in theory, you have a limited amount of time and experience to install and become proficient in the different packages.

 
zoogs said:
Well, there's the concept of a 'matchup offense' that morphs radically week to week; I don't think that's practiced universally in the NFL, but a few teams (New England namely) have a philosophy of it. At the college level, I'm not sure how many teams do it. I'm sure the ones that do do it at a less complex level.

And I don't see anything wrong with putting in some new plays and showing new looks for specific opponents. If that's all it is, that's not uncommon and we've been doing that all the time over the years (other side of the ball, too. And remember Purdue pulling out the 3-4 to fluster Tommy as a freshman?) It's a question of whether the offense and namely the QB can handle it, or if they're being too optimistic about that. I can see the skepticism.
Click to expand...
I agree with much of your post.

I think the system is great when you can maintain the required level of complexity. My concern is that simplifying it hamstrings the advantage and actually makes your offense easier to defend.

 
Osborne and his DC's also made lots of strategic adjustments on defense, anticipating the different offensive packages they would face over the season.

Because most DCs aren't idiots, most OCs make adjustments rather than telegraph their entire package of options.

(yes, Nebraska could impose its will 20 years ago. Even then, Osborne got creative against better competition)

 
1995 Redux said:
Is there anything this staff does that you do like? Can we talk about that for once?
Click to expand...
Ive talked repeatedly about how I like Riley's perspective and approach to coaching college athletes.
I'm not seeing Riley and Langs as idiots. Lots of coaches take their approach, including some of the most successful coaches. A lot of average to unsuccessful coaches do, too. I just happen to think it's hard in Nebraska circumstances to chase that approach.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Benning talks about how they want to put in a specific package of plays that are tailored for each WR. That's 4 to 5 different packages, per Benning.
Click to expand...
I mean, that sounds totally fine to me. And also no surprise at all for a creative offense featuring a lot of WRs. For example, there are always going to be one or two of them that are worked in the jet sweep game -- and there are going to be some games where they throw a lot of that in, and some games where it's not really a thing.

Some WRs will be really good in space, so you get them in the slot and get them screen plays, etc; some WRs are big-bodied and maybe they haven't broken into the rotation but you wat to bring them in at the goalline for a fade, things like that. That's what it sounds like -- an offense that has a core, but part of that is developing some utility playmakers.

Similar with RBs, I'm totally fine with having a pass-RB/power-RB/etc and using them as such, instead of trying to make everyone an every-down back. But I don't know how many college teams play it this way.

 
So Langsdorf put in some different plays and packages during THE SPRING, they practiced and learned them. They now have them in the playbook to study all summer. And you're complaining.....

Sorry that we're not going to run option to the left, option to the right, fullback trap, constantly.

 
So the plan is to do the Tim Beck "Take what the defense gives you" or "go where they aren't" thing?

Huh.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cm husker said:
Here's the clip: http://www.1620thezone.com/SharpandBenningPodcastPage.aspx

It's toward the back third of it.

Benning talks about how they want to put in a specific package of plays that are tailored for each WR. That's 4 to 5 different packages, per Benning.

I get that it's an approach. I just don't think it's good for continuity and overall efficiency because while it sounds great in theory, you have a limited amount of time and experience to install and become proficient in the different packages.
Click to expand...
I listened to the entire segment that started playing when I clicked on the link and heard nothing about an interview with Langs.

 
Back
Top