Riley on What He's Looking for in QBs

[BigRedBuster]

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Gross. I hate the typical NFL offense. True, me and you could never be friends after reading that.
I LOVE the zone read, you can run it so many different ways. Understanding that is when the spread/zone read gets fun. For me anyway.

Second bolded (edit): It's not about having RB's to tote the job. Having a QB being able to run the ball gives you a numbers advantage when a play is executed perfectly. Most plays are designed to give the ball carrier a one on one with an unblocked corner/safety. When using the QB as the ball carrier, for example, on QB Iso, the tailback becomes the lead blocker etc...

I could talk scheme for days but I won't bore you with that.

Fullbacks make great lead blockers. I formation all day long.

Are you just purposely not understanding what he's saying? In a typical I formation when the FB is the lead blocker for the RB, there is an inherent numbers disadvantage for the offense because the QB does nothing besides hand the ball off. In the zone read, the QB acts as the RB, allowing for more overall blockers and an easier way to get a numbers advantage.

No. I get what he's saying. Its not a complicating theory.

f#*k, when I come to this place anymore, all I wanna do is punch somebody in their f'ing mouth.

You don't like it when people disagree with you?

You're not going to like too many internet boards then.

 

[teachercd]

Ha!

 

[bale]

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Gross. I hate the typical NFL offense. True, me and you could never be friends after reading that.
I LOVE the zone read, you can run it so many different ways. Understanding that is when the spread/zone read gets fun. For me anyway.

Second bolded (edit): It's not about having RB's to tote the job. Having a QB being able to run the ball gives you a numbers advantage when a play is executed perfectly. Most plays are designed to give the ball carrier a one on one with an unblocked corner/safety. When using the QB as the ball carrier, for example, on QB Iso, the tailback becomes the lead blocker etc...

I could talk scheme for days but I won't bore you with that.

Fullbacks make great lead blockers. I formation all day long.

Are you just purposely not understanding what he's saying? In a typical I formation when the FB is the lead blocker for the RB, there is an inherent numbers disadvantage for the offense because the QB does nothing besides hand the ball off. In the zone read, the QB acts as the RB, allowing for more overall blockers and an easier way to get a numbers advantage.

No. I get what he's saying. Its not a complicating theory.

f#*k, when I come to this place anymore, all I wanna do is punch somebody in their f'ing mouth.

Intriguing reply, chap! Your threat of violence has convinced me the error of my ways! Have a great day!

 

[CharBroiled]

I think it speaks volumes to Riley because he wants to make adjustments which fit the personnel. Tommy isn't ever going to be a dropback passer, but has loads of athleticism so why not game plan to use it rather than try to jam someone like a Joe Dailey into the West Coast offense, or a Zac Lee into a zone read scheme. Sounds to me like Riley wants to play to the strengths of the team, and I'm also willing to bet we'll see I-formations in the red zone, with use of a tight end on wheels and release routes.

Versatile is great. And it's a versatile without Tim Beck.

 

[Redux]

"Can he just pick it up and throw it? He does that well."

Why? Did he fumble it?

 

[Count 'Bility]

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Gross. I hate the typical NFL offense. True, me and you could never be friends after reading that.
I LOVE the zone read, you can run it so many different ways. Understanding that is when the spread/zone read gets fun. For me anyway.

Second bolded (edit): It's not about having RB's to tote the job. Having a QB being able to run the ball gives you a numbers advantage when a play is executed perfectly. Most plays are designed to give the ball carrier a one on one with an unblocked corner/safety. When using the QB as the ball carrier, for example, on QB Iso, the tailback becomes the lead blocker etc...

I could talk scheme for days but I won't bore you with that.

Fullbacks make great lead blockers. I formation all day long.

Are you just purposely not understanding what he's saying? In a typical I formation when the FB is the lead blocker for the RB, there is an inherent numbers disadvantage for the offense because the QB does nothing besides hand the ball off. In the zone read, the QB acts as the RB, allowing for more overall blockers and an easier way to get a numbers advantage.

No. I get what he's saying. Its not a complicating theory.

f#*k, when I come to this place anymore, all I wanna do is punch somebody in their f'ing mouth.

I completly agree. Everytime I saw the QB in a shotgun set in the redzone. I wanted to beat Pelini & Becks head into a wall. Why not let your RB run down hill with a lead blocker. A team that can control the clock & the run game will win a lot of football games.

its not shotgun its pistol. And its quicker in getting the ball to your backs than being under center. Its quicker in getting into your action. Its why it was invented and became so popular and is widely used. Almost exclusively.
Also, the fullback position is pretty much dead. Its about Hbacks. Flex guys that kick out and trap allowing lineman to release and take advantage of excellent angles. Watch what Ohio st did to oregon with their hback on that inside counter they ran umpteen million times in a row to close out the title game.

 

[True2tRA]

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Gross. I hate the typical NFL offense. True, me and you could never be friends after reading that.
I LOVE the zone read, you can run it so many different ways. Understanding that is when the spread/zone read gets fun. For me anyway.

Second bolded (edit): It's not about having RB's to tote the job. Having a QB being able to run the ball gives you a numbers advantage when a play is executed perfectly. Most plays are designed to give the ball carrier a one on one with an unblocked corner/safety. When using the QB as the ball carrier, for example, on QB Iso, the tailback becomes the lead blocker etc...

I could talk scheme for days but I won't bore you with that.

Fullbacks make great lead blockers. I formation all day long.

Are you just purposely not understanding what he's saying? In a typical I formation when the FB is the lead blocker for the RB, there is an inherent numbers disadvantage for the offense because the QB does nothing besides hand the ball off. In the zone read, the QB acts as the RB, allowing for more overall blockers and an easier way to get a numbers advantage.

No. I get what he's saying. Its not a complicating theory.

f#*k, when I come to this place anymore, all I wanna do is punch somebody in their f'ing mouth.

I completly agree. Everytime I saw the QB in a shotgun set in the redzone. I wanted to beat Pelini & Becks head into a wall. Why not let your RB run down hill with a lead blocker. A team that can control the clock & the run game will win a lot of football games.

Yea, that downhill running game is more of a personal preference for me. I honestly gues I wouldn't even have complained about Beck's offense so much if it didn't look so sloppy an poorly executed. It never seemed to get better. Especially on the offensive line.

I guess the way I see it, the end zone's in Memorial Stadium are on the North and South ends. How about we hand it to the running back and tell him to go that way. Makes more sense than running east and west doesn't it?

 

[True2tRA]

I had considered making a thread discussing this at some point.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the type of QB Riley and his staff appear to be seeking. I understand them altering the offensive system to suit the QB we have in the program now, but I was actually looking forward to moving more toward the type of offense that Oregon State had been running in recent history. Maybe a nice mix of both styles will be good, but I'm a bit disappointed. I want far less spread, far less outside zone, and a whole lot more running behind the guards and center and between the tackles. I am sick and tired of the zone read, personally.

Now maybe they move away from these things, but the type of QB they're recruting makes me think it will be a part of the offene for their tenure.I wanted to see Nebraska move away from this mobile QB mentality. I want our offense to start resembling NFL offenses. I'd like to see the Huskers put a Quarterback into the NFL someday soon. We need a pass first type of guy. A guy that throws it great, and if he can run, that's good. To me, mobility is secondary and honestly not all that important at all. Not in my ideal offense anyway.

I've been on board with this staff and their vision, but this may be the first disappointment I have. I liked the offense we saw in the spring game for the most part, but I sure wish the passing game looked a hell of a lot better. I couldn't care less if the QB can run the damn ball or not. We have four or five RB's on the roster who can handle that part of it.

Gross. I hate the typical NFL offense. True, me and you could never be friends after reading that.
I LOVE the zone read, you can run it so many different ways. Understanding that is when the spread/zone read gets fun. For me anyway.

Second bolded (edit): It's not about having RB's to tote the job. Having a QB being able to run the ball gives you a numbers advantage when a play is executed perfectly. Most plays are designed to give the ball carrier a one on one with an unblocked corner/safety. When using the QB as the ball carrier, for example, on QB Iso, the tailback becomes the lead blocker etc...

I could talk scheme for days but I won't bore you with that.

Fullbacks make great lead blockers. I formation all day long.

Are you just purposely not understanding what he's saying? In a typical I formation when the FB is the lead blocker for the RB, there is an inherent numbers disadvantage for the offense because the QB does nothing besides hand the ball off. In the zone read, the QB acts as the RB, allowing for more overall blockers and an easier way to get a numbers advantage.

No. I get what he's saying. Its not a complicating theory.

f#*k, when I come to this place anymore, all I wanna do is punch somebody in their f'ing mouth.

I completly agree. Everytime I saw the QB in a shotgun set in the redzone. I wanted to beat Pelini & Becks head into a wall. Why not let your RB run down hill with a lead blocker. A team that can control the clock & the run game will win a lot of football games.

its not shotgun its pistol. And its quicker in getting the ball to your backs than being under center. Its quicker in getting into your action. Its why it was invented and became so popular and is widely used. Almost exclusively. Also, the fullback position is pretty much dead. Its about Hbacks. Flex guys that kick out and trap allowing lineman to release and take advantage of excellent angles. Watch what Ohio st did to oregon with their hback on that inside counter they ran umpteen million times in a row to close out the title game.

H-Backs are a spinoff of the fullback position in all reality. A fullback/TE hybrid. I love the use of the H-Back that Oho St. utilizes. Again, they utilize a north and south inside zone a lot more than we ever did it seems. I think Janovich or Cross could be a lot of fun to see in an H-Back role. Blum may be a good one too. Watching the spring game it looked like we used the H-Back a bit although I can't altogeher remember how much. I would love this to be a big part of what we do going forward.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

I think it speaks volumes to Riley because he wants to make adjustments which fit the personnel. Tommy isn't ever going to be a dropback passer, but has loads of athleticism so why not game plan to use it rather than try to jam someone like a Joe Dailey into the West Coast offense, or a Zac Lee into a zone read scheme. Sounds to me like Riley wants to play to the strengths of the team, and I'm also willing to bet we'll see I-formations in the red zone, with use of a tight end on wheels and release routes.

Versatile is great. And it's a versatile without Tim Beck.

I agree. I never get tired of hearing that he's willing to make adjustments and fit things to the players skill set instead of the other way around.

 

[True2tRA]

I think it speaks volumes to Riley because he wants to make adjustments which fit the personnel. Tommy isn't ever going to be a dropback passer, but has loads of athleticism so why not game plan to use it rather than try to jam someone like a Joe Dailey into the West Coast offense, or a Zac Lee into a zone read scheme. Sounds to me like Riley wants to play to the strengths of the team, and I'm also willing to bet we'll see I-formations in the red zone, with use of a tight end on wheels and release routes.

Versatile is great. And it's a versatile without Tim Beck.

I agree. I never get tired of hearing that he's willing to make adjustments and fit things to the players skill set instead of the other way around.

 

[True2tRA]

I think it speaks volumes to Riley because he wants to make adjustments which fit the personnel. Tommy isn't ever going to be a dropback passer, but has loads of athleticism so why not game plan to use it rather than try to jam someone like a Joe Dailey into the West Coast offense, or a Zac Lee into a zone read scheme. Sounds to me like Riley wants to play to the strengths of the team, and I'm also willing to bet we'll see I-formations in the red zone, with use of a tight end on wheels and release routes.

Versatile is great. And it's a versatile without Tim Beck.

I agree. I never get tired of hearing that he's willing to make adjustments and fit things to the players skill set instead of the other way around.

I think most would agree with this. I'm thrilled to hear it becuse I don't think this was necessarily the approach of the former staff.
Building around the talent you have is what a good coach does. You don't try to make a player be something he can't be. Especially at the QB position.

If I sound at all unhappy with Riley's offensive plan, it's mostly because I figured we would recruit "pass first" QB's and not worry so much about mobility. Mobility is great if the kid has it, but I want a guy with the throwing arm and accuracy first.

I envisioned an offense that resembled something closer to what they ran at Oregon St. at some point in the future. Maybe it still happens, I don't know. I've seen enough zone read.

 

[teachercd]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

 

[Mavric]

It's one thing to adjust to the current players you have. It's another to think enough of it that they're already changing (somewhat) the type of players they're recruiting. Not saying it's good or bad but it's definitely interesting.

 

[True2tRA]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.
I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

 

[teachercd]

We know how this goes...we will love the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are moving the ball, scoring TD's and winning. We will all hate the offense (no matter what it is or looks like) if they are not moving the ball, not scoring TD's and not winning.

If NU was running 60 QB sneaks per game for an average of 6 yards a carry and winning each game, we would think it was the greatest offense ever.

You should speak for yourself a lot more instead of tryng to speak for everyone else. You might be right every once in awhile if you stopped trying to guess how everyone else feels about it.

I watch the game of football for a hell of a lot more than just " who won".

I am right, you would be thrilled if NU went 14-0 this season using the QB Sneak offense. We all would.

You know what, never mind. Maybe you would be mad/unhappy if NU went undefeated with an offense you didn't like. Seems weird to me but its all good!