THANK YOU! I am so sick of this non-specific language that almost seems to suggest some kind of magical thinking. That if the team had "identity" then everything would be fine... or even better. I have never heard a good explanation of what "identity" means in this context or exactly how having it would make things better. It seems, at best, to be a stand in for "consistency," but even that is a little vague. It has become one of those words that is said and repeated enough that it garners and air of substance, but it really doesn't actually even begin to suggest what should be done. (Imagine that if you were at work and your boss came in and said that unless you developed an identity you'd be fired.)See I think McKewon's excellent analysis suggests the exact opposite. The dominant teams, which presumably have this offensive "identity" we crave, are efficient at both running and passing the ball. When it's 3rd and 5 they don't have one play that almost always gets it. They have a few to choose from, because every defense has film of every game. Their offensive success isn't from creating an identity, unless that identity is good athletes who are mentally prepared and able to execute a diverse play selection. The Top 10 is full of teams who are master of all trades. That's where excellence comes from.I think one of the biggest issues with our offense is lack of identity. What is the one thing you do well? You need 5 yards, what is the play that almost always gets it? We haven't really had that under Beck. You just keep hearing that we want to be multiple. Multiple. Jack of all trades, master of none.
I think we have a promising offense and should have a solid running game. McKewon's point seems to be that memories of Nebraska's impressive running attack are pretty selective, and dreams of just ramming Abdullah down the opponent's throat might be misguided.
Besides, the way the huskers played for the last several years IS part of their identity. Being inconsistent, having constantly shifting strengths and weaknesses, and so on can be a part of an identity. The idea that they don't have one at all is absurd from the start. They just don't have an identity that people would like them to have.