Offense a work in progress

[cornographic]

It is plain and simple, we need O linemen to come to Nebraska. Were are not known for the option anymore and lost in the carousal of coaches this past decade or so and changes of schollies and rules along the way. Before Devaney came to Nebraska, it had been 50 seasons we were lagging in football (When we entered WWII), will it take that long again to find a HC that can at least keep us in games and win CC's? The walk on program, I hope will have players who are on the offense line.

We're pretty much 2 deep with quality OLmen--some up and comers. Just gotta get them to perform.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Just because we were "run first" doesn't mean it wasn't finesse. I consider a lot off offenses in the NCAA right now "finesse" offenses. It's the current direction the game has trended. It didn't always used to be this way. I'm old school. I like the old way.

I'm gonna label any offense "finesse" when they run the ball out of the shotgun, and secondly, don't run the ball between the tackles.

I could give two craps less if your definition of finesse fits my definition. When I look at the type of football I like, versus what I watched Tim Beck run, I call it finesse.

I remind you, I'm not the one who called it "basketball on grass"......he did.A

Also, I believe I've talked plenty here about the offensive line issues and again, as with most other struggling aspects of this team, I don't lay blame squarely on the players like many do. They looked confused and un-aggressive. I'd like to see how these guys do in a more aggressive scheme with a clear "hat on a hat" style. I think these same players who struggled previously could find a bit more success, even if it just a little bit.

We ran the ball between the tackles. A lot. No idea what games you were watching.

I'd like to see a fullback and some multi-back sets myself. I suppose you could call a variety of multi-back sets finesse if you wanted to. They require a lot of timing and execution.

The read option itself is no more finesse than Osborne's old Triple Option, which was actually pretty complex and went outside more often than it went between the tackles.

Believe it or not, in 20 of 25 of Tom Osborne's seasons, Nebraska's power running game got shut down by good defenses who knew exactly what we were going to do, and had the speed and strength on defense to stop it cold. There are more of those defenses today. It was definitely a thing of beauty when our offensive line could physically dominate lesser teams, and that's still an issue today. If your offensive line can't drive the power running game, you better be multiple.

Last year's offense looked damned good in a lot of games. And perhaps at its best in the Holiday Bowl against a talented USC team, the only game Tim Beck coached without Bo Pelini over his shoulder.

You bring up attitude, and that's huge. Attitude was a problem on offense, defense and special teams for several years and with different personnel. I don't see it having much to do with offensive scheme, and far more to do with the culture fostered by the head coach and team leaders.

Some folks accused the West Coast Offense and the San Francisco 49ers of "finesse" but I'll take those five Super Bowls any day, thanks.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The term "Basketball on grass" was first used in the 80s and 90s when talking about florida teams that threw the ball a vast majority of the time on short dink and dunk routes. Now, yes...that creates matchup problems in space with receivers. But, that doesn't necessarily mean zone blocking schemes...etc. And, our offense last year was nowhere close to what Spurrier was running in the early 90s at Florida.

Also, almost all offenses try to create mismatches in space. Our option plays during TOs era loved to have a single DB trying to tackle Mike Rosier on the outside. They created that by sucking the LBs in to stop the FB and the DE had to take the QB. That leaves a poor little DB in space trying to tackle our RB.

Most teams zone mostly zone block most of the time, these days--it ain't "mano y mano" anymore, FTMP. Osborne's triple option offense was considered 'smash mouth' since they ran the ball 80+% of the time, as much up the gut as to the edge, and mostly used man on man blocking schemes.

I don't think you can find too many CFB offenses these days that wouldn't be considered relatively "finesse". Most are all spread out and passing the ball all over the place, along with some read option type thing. That's just the way the game is played today. Beck's offense, still slightly run heavy, is mid range finesse, IMO.

I agree with this and it's something that many Husker fans sit and stew about thinking our OLinemen sucks because look at them blocking. Meanwhile, it's actually the zone blocking they are being asked to do instead of the actual talent of the O lineman.

Now, before someone says anything, yes....Our O line simply looked horrible at times. But, I find that more actually on pass blocking like in the MSU game than most of the time in run blocking. In run blocking, they aren't told to go run the guy over in front of them. They are taught to push the guy in the direction the guy really wants to go. It sometimes actually looks like our guy is being pushed around. Problem was we didn't do it quite as good as other teams at times.

 

[cornographic]

The term "Basketball on grass" was first used in the 80s and 90s when talking about florida teams that threw the ball a vast majority of the time on short dink and dunk routes. Now, yes...that creates matchup problems in space with receivers. But, that doesn't necessarily mean zone blocking schemes...etc. And, our offense last year was nowhere close to what Spurrier was running in the early 90s at Florida.

Also, almost all offenses try to create mismatches in space. Our option plays during TOs era loved to have a single DB trying to tackle Mike Rosier on the outside. They created that by sucking the LBs in to stop the FB and the DE had to take the QB. That leaves a poor little DB in space trying to tackle our RB.

Most teams zone mostly zone block most of the time, these days--it ain't "mano y mano" anymore, FTMP. Osborne's triple option offense was considered 'smash mouth' since they ran the ball 80+% of the time, as much up the gut as to the edge, and mostly used man on man blocking schemes.

I don't think you can find too many CFB offenses these days that wouldn't be considered relatively "finesse". Most are all spread out and passing the ball all over the place, along with some read option type thing. That's just the way the game is played today. Beck's offense, still slightly run heavy, is mid range finesse, IMO.

I agree with this and it's something that many Husker fans sit and stew about thinking our OLinemen sucks because look at them blocking. Meanwhile, it's actually the zone blocking they are being asked to do instead of the actual talent of the O lineman.

Now, before someone says anything, yes....Our O line simply looked horrible at times. But, I find that more actually on pass blocking like in the MSU game than most of the time in run blocking. In run blocking, they aren't told to go run the guy over in front of them. They are taught to push the guy in the direction the guy really wants to go. It sometimes actually looks like our guy is being pushed around. Problem was we didn't do it quite as good as other teams at times.

Because the offenses are much more complex these days, the blocking responsibilities are more complex.

 

[The Dude]

Someone needs to define finesse for me.

I think people just mean spread when they say that. The philosophy of "going where they ain't" (Tim Beck's offense) instead of "running them over" (Wisconsin/Stanford/Tom Osborne's offense)

I'm sorry but that is not an accurate characterization of Tom's offense. Tom was a master at play calling. If all you are going to do is line up and run over people, then it doesn't take a master at play calling. All it takes is bigger and stronger players. What he did in games was he ran plays that baited the defense to do certain things and then he ran counter plays to take advantage of that. The option with the counter of the full back trap is a perfect example. He would run option and beat them over and over again until the LBs would cheat to the outside. That leaves the defense perfectly vulnerable to the full back trap. The running game and the deep option pass plays are another example. Beat them with the run and bait the defense to cheat too close to the LOS and then run, what looks like, an option play only to have the QB step back and bomb one deep behind the defense. These are both examples of what made is offense click and it all has to do with going where the defense isn't. Another one is a play that when I hear certain fans talk about I just have to go

. I don't think there is one option play that is more maligned by Husker fans than the option to the short side of the field. Truth is, TO loved that play because the defense was lined up to defend the other side with more real estate. According to the definition of "Going where the defense isn't"...these are all examples of TO's offense being a finesse offense.

There were certainly misdirection elements to Tom's offense, and any offense, really. That's not what Tim Beck meant by that. He was talking about spreading the defense out and getting the ball carrier/receiver to the empty spots on the field. Tom's offense was more about being physical at the point of attack and overpowering the defense, and wearing them down.

 

[admo]

It is plain and simple, we need O linemen to come to Nebraska. Were are not known for the option anymore and lost in the carousal of coaches this past decade or so and changes of schollies and rules along the way. Before Devaney came to Nebraska, it had been 50 seasons we were lagging in football (When we entered WWII), will it take that long again to find a HC that can at least keep us in games and win CC's? The walk on program, I hope will have players who are on the offense line.

I'd love to see some big ol' lineman like Alabama, Arkansas and a few other SEC schools. Not only are they strong and talented, they're HUGE.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The term "Basketball on grass" was first used in the 80s and 90s when talking about florida teams that threw the ball a vast majority of the time on short dink and dunk routes. Now, yes...that creates matchup problems in space with receivers. But, that doesn't necessarily mean zone blocking schemes...etc. And, our offense last year was nowhere close to what Spurrier was running in the early 90s at Florida.

Also, almost all offenses try to create mismatches in space. Our option plays during TOs era loved to have a single DB trying to tackle Mike Rosier on the outside. They created that by sucking the LBs in to stop the FB and the DE had to take the QB. That leaves a poor little DB in space trying to tackle our RB.

Most teams zone mostly zone block most of the time, these days--it ain't "mano y mano" anymore, FTMP. Osborne's triple option offense was considered 'smash mouth' since they ran the ball 80+% of the time, as much up the gut as to the edge, and mostly used man on man blocking schemes.

I don't think you can find too many CFB offenses these days that wouldn't be considered relatively "finesse". Most are all spread out and passing the ball all over the place, along with some read option type thing. That's just the way the game is played today. Beck's offense, still slightly run heavy, is mid range finesse, IMO.

I agree with this and it's something that many Husker fans sit and stew about thinking our OLinemen sucks because look at them blocking. Meanwhile, it's actually the zone blocking they are being asked to do instead of the actual talent of the O lineman.

Now, before someone says anything, yes....Our O line simply looked horrible at times. But, I find that more actually on pass blocking like in the MSU game than most of the time in run blocking. In run blocking, they aren't told to go run the guy over in front of them. They are taught to push the guy in the direction the guy really wants to go. It sometimes actually looks like our guy is being pushed around. Problem was we didn't do it quite as good as other teams at times.

Because the offenses are much more complex these days, the blocking responsibilities are more complex.

Because defenses are much more complex too. Theyre not just lining up stack 43's or 52's anymore. Guys are shifting around to gain advantages and leverage in gaps, linebackers are shifting to gain angles and prevent line leverage. Youre right. The days of line em up and smash heads are long gone. It's become very VERY technical on bothsides of the ball.

I was a tackle in highschool, and on any given run play, my responsibilities would vary from pinning the end, kicking out the end, getting down on the inside linebacker, double teaming the end with the guard, or stretching to the outside backer. And all these things were dependent on not only how that end was lining up, but the DT and the backers as well. And the responsibilites could change or be adjusted with the slightest shift, and I mean from his outside shoulder being head up, to his outside shoulder being on my inside shoulder. Inches. Sometimes that's the difference in the proper angle in being able to make the proper block or not. And then at halftime we'd analyze the alingments against certain formations and adjust from there. And these are mostly the little adjustments that no one ever notices.

 

[cornographic]

The term "Basketball on grass" was first used in the 80s and 90s when talking about florida teams that threw the ball a vast majority of the time on short dink and dunk routes. Now, yes...that creates matchup problems in space with receivers. But, that doesn't necessarily mean zone blocking schemes...etc. And, our offense last year was nowhere close to what Spurrier was running in the early 90s at Florida.

Also, almost all offenses try to create mismatches in space. Our option plays during TOs era loved to have a single DB trying to tackle Mike Rosier on the outside. They created that by sucking the LBs in to stop the FB and the DE had to take the QB. That leaves a poor little DB in space trying to tackle our RB.

Most teams zone mostly zone block most of the time, these days--it ain't "mano y mano" anymore, FTMP. Osborne's triple option offense was considered 'smash mouth' since they ran the ball 80+% of the time, as much up the gut as to the edge, and mostly used man on man blocking schemes.

I don't think you can find too many CFB offenses these days that wouldn't be considered relatively "finesse". Most are all spread out and passing the ball all over the place, along with some read option type thing. That's just the way the game is played today. Beck's offense, still slightly run heavy, is mid range finesse, IMO.

I agree with this and it's something that many Husker fans sit and stew about thinking our OLinemen sucks because look at them blocking. Meanwhile, it's actually the zone blocking they are being asked to do instead of the actual talent of the O lineman.

Now, before someone says anything, yes....Our O line simply looked horrible at times. But, I find that more actually on pass blocking like in the MSU game than most of the time in run blocking. In run blocking, they aren't told to go run the guy over in front of them. They are taught to push the guy in the direction the guy really wants to go. It sometimes actually looks like our guy is being pushed around. Problem was we didn't do it quite as good as other teams at times.

Because the offenses are much more complex these days, the blocking responsibilities are more complex.

Because defenses are much more complex too. Theyre not just lining up stack 43's or 52's anymore. Guys are shifting around to gain advantages and leverage in gaps, linebackers are shifting to gain angles and prevent line leverage. Youre right. The days of line em up and smash heads are long gone. It's become very VERY technical on bothsides of the ball.

I was a tackle in highschool, and on any given run play, my responsibilities would vary from pinning the end, kicking out the end, getting down on the inside linebacker, double teaming the end with the guard, or stretching to the outside backer. And all these things were dependent on not only how that end was lining up, but the DT and the backers as well. And the responsibilites could change or be adjusted with the slightest shift, and I mean from his outside shoulder being head up, to his outside shoulder being on my inside shoulder. Inches. Sometimes that's the difference in the proper angle in being able to make the proper block or not. And then at halftime we'd analyze the alingments against certain formations and adjust from there. And these are mostly the little adjustments that no one ever notices.

piece o' cake, coach......

 

[True2tRA]

Just because we were "run first" doesn't mean it wasn't finesse. I consider a lot off offenses in the NCAA right now "finesse" offenses. It's the current direction the game has trended. It didn't always used to be this way. I'm old school. I like the old way.

I'm gonna label any offense "finesse" when they run the ball out of the shotgun, and secondly, don't run the ball between the tackles.

I could give two craps less if your definition of finesse fits my definition. When I look at the type of football I like, versus what I watched Tim Beck run, I call it finesse.

I remind you, I'm not the one who called it "basketball on grass"......he did.A

Also, I believe I've talked plenty here about the offensive line issues and again, as with most other struggling aspects of this team, I don't lay blame squarely on the players like many do. They looked confused and un-aggressive. I'd like to see how these guys do in a more aggressive scheme with a clear "hat on a hat" style. I think these same players who struggled previously could find a bit more success, even if it just a little bit.

We ran the ball between the tackles. A lot. No idea what games you were watching.

I'd like to see a fullback and some multi-back sets myself. I suppose you could call a variety of multi-back sets finesse if you wanted to. They require a lot of timing and execution.

The read option itself is no more finesse than Osborne's old Triple Option, which was actually pretty complex and went outside more often than it went between the tackles.

Believe it or not, in 20 of 25 of Tom Osborne's seasons, Nebraska's power running game got shut down by good defenses who knew exactly what we were going to do, and had the speed and strength on defense to stop it cold. There are more of those defenses today. It was definitely a thing of beauty when our offensive line could physically dominate lesser teams, and that's still an issue today. If your offensive line can't drive the power running game, you better be multiple.

Last year's offense looked damned good in a lot of games. And perhaps at its best in the Holiday Bowl against a talented USC team, the only game Tim Beck coached without Bo Pelini over his shoulder.

You bring up attitude, and that's huge. Attitude was a problem on offense, defense and special teams for several years and with different personnel. I don't see it having much to do with offensive scheme, and far more to do with the culture fostered by the head coach and team leaders.

Some folks accused the West Coast Offense and the San Francisco 49ers of "finesse" but I'll take those five Super Bowls any day, thanks.

I watched the same games you were watching....? At least, I think I was. 2014 Nebraska Cornhuskers football?
I think the Dude and Cornographic summed up my definition of finesse pretty well.

I'm not a fan of the zone blocking schemes, even though Mike Shanahan brought them to Denver and won a couple Super Bowls, but that's kind of similar to your comment about San Francisco. Denver and San Fran were successful in their styles because they were some of the first teams to really operate those styles effectively. Walsh is the father of the West Coast offense. Defenses were not prepared.

I'd like to see more of a downhill run game. Physical and aggressive run blocking. I agree, and I've said it multiple times, the offensive line was a hindrance to the offense. The offensive line is the most important part of the offense. I couldn't believe we watched the same guys trying to execute the same garbage year after year as it continued to look ugly. That "attitude" we want to see, is hard to have when you dont know what your assignment is. Hard to get after a guy when you're confused half the time. Beck needed to alter some things.....he never did.

I credit our RB's a lot. We've been fortunate.

Osbornes offenses did get shut down by some very good teams. As do all offenses. Every good offense that has ever been, has been shut down by a great defense at some point. Osbornes offense also trampled a lot of opponents too. Same as Becks did. We agree, that USC game was particularly impressive. There have been others as well.

I give Beck credit for some things. My distaste for him comes from an unwillingness to change, a strange marriage between his system and an offensive line coaxh that doesn't seem to fit the plan, and an overall dislike for that type of football. It's what the game has become for some, but there are still some old school smash mouth type of offenses out there.

We disagree about the read option being no more finesse than the triple option, but that's okay, we'll just disagree.

I'd have loved to see more multiple back sets. In every offense, no matter how aggressive, timing and execution are key, but it seemed to me we focused too much on being deceptive. Trying to outthink. Football can be a chess match sure, but sometimes you've just got to put your head down, know where you're going, send the brigade to the point of attack and ram it down the defenses damn throats. I wouldn't have minded seeing Beck do a little more of that instead of trying to be the "mad scientist" and outthink them all the time.

Also, can I just add that a "zone read option scheme" where the play is pre-determined as to who will get the ball, isn't actually a "zone READ option" at all. It was revealed during last season that Tommy wasn't even being asked to make the read anymore, he was instructed to hand the ball to Abdullah. Now, handing the ball to Ameer Abdullah sounds like a great idea to me ALL THE TIME, but if you're already pre-determining that to be the case, then why run the damn zone read from 7 yards behind the line of scrimmage? Give the kid a full head of steam from the I-Formation with Janovich for a lead blocker and let him do his work.

 

[zoogs]

I just don't understand having a QB and not letting him make the reads. That's the whole point of the play.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Armstrong had 145 carries last year.

He called his own number quite a bit. Some complained he didn't give to Abdullah enough.

If they knew beforehand who was getting the ball, it wasn't really an option, just a fake. I don't remember that insight/complaint being revealed. It's telling if true.

I get the Power-I and downhill running approach. Watched it for many years. Nothing against it at all. But it is a six of one, half dozen of another comparison. You can give an RB a lead blocker and a full head of steam, but you're committing to a specific hole you hope to open up in the middle of the line. Spread option forces a defense to move lateral, almost always creating multiple holes, but requiring a good cutback runner and decision maker.

The spread option has gained favor for teams with running quarterbacks for obvious reasons. It's tough to defend. I don't see it as more clever or finessy. Just the latest trend.

And the Power-I works really well when both RB and FB are dekes, buying time for your drop back passer, already standing seven steps back in the pocket after the play-action fake. That pro-set passer could really help our power running game. I'm all for it.

If you study Tom Osborne's offense, you'll see he did a little bit of almost everything, and the Triple Option that won us those NCs had multiple variations of its own, a very high risk formation that required precision execution. We had huge linemen and beat the crap out of teams, but in terms of scheme and play-calling, you could argue that Tom Osborne teams played with a lot of....you know....the "F" word.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Also, I think it's hard for an offense to have either attitude or identity when its defense is letting the other team run through it.

Still say it's more about Team than Scheme.