Hujan
New member
I was thinking about the team under Riley today and it struck me that our schemes on offense and defense present an undeniable and inherent contradiction in football theory. Allow me to explain:
Defense--Stop the run
Our defense scheme is clearly designed to stop the run first and foremost. We pull the safeties up close to the LOS and leave our corners largely in single coverage. The "sign" that our defense is working as designed is that opposing offenses will have little choice but to attempt deep, fade routes to the outside.
I have to assume that this schematic shift is predicated on Banker's belief that, against most college teams, when you take away the run, you take away their offense. Banker no doubt feels that few college teams have QBs who are good enough to beat teams with their arms, and therefore selling out to take away the run will win a lot of college football games.
And the stats have borne this out: Whereas in recent years Nebraska had a historically embarrassing rushing D, our pass D was pretty good. By contrast, now our rush D is good, but our pass D is porous at best. And yet, to Banker's credit, we have been in every single game thus far despite having a porous D. And even if you point out that this is only because we have yet to play a truly stellar QB, you are only making Banker's point: Most teams lack the elite talent at QB to consistently put up points without the run.
Offense--Abandon the run
Given that Banker clearly believes stopping the run is imperative to shutting down an opposing offense and does not seem terribly worried about teams beating a defense through the air, one would expect that our offense would focus heavily on ensuring a powerful, unstoppable rushing attack, with a relative de-emphasis on the pass.
And yet, what you see is exactly the opposite: We have effectively de-emphasized the run in favor of trying to pickup yards through the air. And we are doing so on the back of a QB who lacks the ability to consistently make the reads and throws needed to move the chains. The result is basically a Mark Banker wet dream: An offense that frequently attempts low-percentage passes downfield, consistently struggles to pick up first downs, and has trouble reliably putting points on the board.
Conclusion
To summarize: Our defense is built on the belief that an offense cannot put points on the board unless it can run the ball effectively and therefore schemes to take away the run. By contrast, our offense reflects the belief that an offense cannot put points on the board without a powerful passing attack, and voluntarily abandons the run.
You could actually take this one step further: In addition to stopping the run, the stated goal of Banker's defense is to "spill" plays to the outside. The middle is solid and the goal is to flush ball carriers to the perimeter. Banker's ostensible rationale is that by forcing plays to the outside, the sideline essentially becomes a 12th defender, thereby making it easier to limit opponents' yards. And yet, what is a staple you see with Riley's offense? Lots of quick bubble screens to the outside and fly motion all of which do what? Force the ball toward the sidelines, exactly where a Mark Banker-coached defense would dream of putting the ballcarrier.
I find it shocking that a single team's offense and defense could reflect such diametrically opposing theories of what it takes to succeed at football and I have to believe this is a huge reason for our failure as a team. It is tempting to wonder what is going through Banker's head as he watches Riley and Langsdorf abandoning the run in favor of forcing low-percentage balls downfield or running plays to the sidelines.
Defense--Stop the run
Our defense scheme is clearly designed to stop the run first and foremost. We pull the safeties up close to the LOS and leave our corners largely in single coverage. The "sign" that our defense is working as designed is that opposing offenses will have little choice but to attempt deep, fade routes to the outside.
I have to assume that this schematic shift is predicated on Banker's belief that, against most college teams, when you take away the run, you take away their offense. Banker no doubt feels that few college teams have QBs who are good enough to beat teams with their arms, and therefore selling out to take away the run will win a lot of college football games.
And the stats have borne this out: Whereas in recent years Nebraska had a historically embarrassing rushing D, our pass D was pretty good. By contrast, now our rush D is good, but our pass D is porous at best. And yet, to Banker's credit, we have been in every single game thus far despite having a porous D. And even if you point out that this is only because we have yet to play a truly stellar QB, you are only making Banker's point: Most teams lack the elite talent at QB to consistently put up points without the run.
Offense--Abandon the run
Given that Banker clearly believes stopping the run is imperative to shutting down an opposing offense and does not seem terribly worried about teams beating a defense through the air, one would expect that our offense would focus heavily on ensuring a powerful, unstoppable rushing attack, with a relative de-emphasis on the pass.
And yet, what you see is exactly the opposite: We have effectively de-emphasized the run in favor of trying to pickup yards through the air. And we are doing so on the back of a QB who lacks the ability to consistently make the reads and throws needed to move the chains. The result is basically a Mark Banker wet dream: An offense that frequently attempts low-percentage passes downfield, consistently struggles to pick up first downs, and has trouble reliably putting points on the board.
Conclusion
To summarize: Our defense is built on the belief that an offense cannot put points on the board unless it can run the ball effectively and therefore schemes to take away the run. By contrast, our offense reflects the belief that an offense cannot put points on the board without a powerful passing attack, and voluntarily abandons the run.
You could actually take this one step further: In addition to stopping the run, the stated goal of Banker's defense is to "spill" plays to the outside. The middle is solid and the goal is to flush ball carriers to the perimeter. Banker's ostensible rationale is that by forcing plays to the outside, the sideline essentially becomes a 12th defender, thereby making it easier to limit opponents' yards. And yet, what is a staple you see with Riley's offense? Lots of quick bubble screens to the outside and fly motion all of which do what? Force the ball toward the sidelines, exactly where a Mark Banker-coached defense would dream of putting the ballcarrier.
I find it shocking that a single team's offense and defense could reflect such diametrically opposing theories of what it takes to succeed at football and I have to believe this is a huge reason for our failure as a team. It is tempting to wonder what is going through Banker's head as he watches Riley and Langsdorf abandoning the run in favor of forcing low-percentage balls downfield or running plays to the sidelines.
Last edited by a moderator:
