Sipple - Frost to make “multiple changes” on his offensive staff…
- Thread starter VectorVictor
- Start date
Jeremy
New member
Army's Flexbone and the offense Solich ran are two COMPLETELY different things. Army, Air Force, Navy, and Georgia Tech all had WAY more success running the Flexbone than we have in the last 5+ years trying pro and spread schemes. The Flexbone is not a perfect offense, but it absolutely fits a place like Lincoln.
We aren't going to get All-American quarterbacks and receivers. Smith-Njigba, who just set the Ohio State record for single game receiving against us, was set to visit Lincoln a couple years ago. He didn't make it, because the Buckeyes offered him, and he took it on the spot. This happens OVER and OVER. We aren't going to beat Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State on the field while losing to them in recruiting kids from Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
The Flexbone is basic, smashmouth football. It wears defenses down during the course of the game. We have HUGE linemen, and I'd be willing to bet they can push most B1G defensive linemen around, 1-on-1. They haven't shown the ability to pass block the last 4 years, so why keep trying to do that? Why keep trying to run spread pass when we're throwing 4 picks and getting sacked 5 times?
These are just a FEW reasons why we should go to the flexbone. I've been saying it for years. But Nebraska keeps doing this pro/spread crap. And we KEEP LOSING.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
The flaw in this argument is we aren't losing to Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan or Michigan State because we can't get good athletes, we're losing because we make bonehead mistakes.
The solution to this isn't to switch up the offense, the solution is to stop making bonehead mistakes.
TGHusker
New member
So as someone not as familiar wt the Flexbone - tell me the difference. What are the benefits of it? why is it hard to defend and prepare for? Why would it succeed in the Big 10 when our old 1990s version would not?
There - I served up a softball for you to hit out of the park. Let's see what you can do with it.
Jeremy
New member
I contend that while our line is young and somewhat inexperienced, they can ABSOLUTELY run block. We haven't really asked them to really drive block very much. Most of it is outside zone scheme - doubling, moving up, reach-blocking, etc. This, to me, is finesse. We bagged on it back in the Callahan days because you actually don't want to knock defenders over at the line of scrimmage and pancake them because this decreases the number of running lanes for the running back.
We haven't asked our guys to line up and take people on, 1-on-1. I think they can. Benhart, Corcoran, Jurgens, etc - these kids are huge, and have done work in the weight room. The flexbone simply asks the linemen to fire off and drive block a defender, low and hard. This is simple football. Who's going to beat a kid like Prochazka, 1 on 1?
The flexbone is the opposite of 'finesse.' The stuff we've been trying to do, and failing at? THAT is finesse. Let's line up and drive some teams back.
Yes, I could see the Flexbone working here well myself. As Knapp said though, it's currently the "details" that have cost us. But I am with you, we have to get back to basic football and smashmouth and the OL being able to truly block and pass. What a concept.
Hope we can get out of the way.
Jeremy
New member
Bonehead mistakes? True. But why? There is a reason.
The bonehead mistakes come from asking these kids to do things they just aren't capable of. Martinez is a great athlete, but he's not going to pass for 300+ every game, and we would need him to if we wanted to compete for the B1G West. He's definitely not going to light up the scoreboard with the offensive line that we have now.
You say the solution isn't to switch up the offense, but that's EXACTLY what we're doing right now. We aren't scoring enough points. The defense is on the field too long. The Flexbone fixes at least one of those problems.
Crusader Husker
New member
Just run an offense that makes our kids tough and get freaking 2 yards when we need it. Of course that may be completely an OL problem. The softness of our O gets really old!
knapplc
Active member
According to my sources the only offensive scheme that produces these kinds of results, and guarantees wins and a return to glory is... <checks notes> the Flexbone.
Jeremy
New member
We never ran anything close to the Flexbone under Osborne. As many have pointed out, Osborne preferred to work the ball down the field with ISO, Pitch, and Counter. The option look was a change-up to break tendencies. He never had his quarterbacks actually read the defense - it was either a called give to the FB or a QB keep/pitch.
In the Flexbone, the quarterback is reading a defender most plays. The 'B' back, or what we would call the fullback, dives straight ahead most plays, and either gets the ball, or he doesn't. A guy like Yant would be PERFECT for this. This stresses a defense right away, because they have to take away that immediate threat. Many times, if the B-Back can break a tackle, he gets yards quickly. After that, it's a matter of getting a hat on a hat. If the QB reads the end or tackle crashing, he pulls, and options out like we've seen so much.
There is a very simple reason as to why it's hard to prepare for. Not only does no one else do it, almost every other defense is built to stop spread offenses, like ours right now. Most defenses, even in the B1G, need to have more defensive backs, more speed on the field, and this necessarily means less size. Also, as a coach, in every other game, you have to teach your players good habits and tendencies when reading twins, trips, Texas route concepts, defending mesh, Y-cross, run leverage against the zone read, and many other things to stop what USED to be new and innovative with the spread. But that's just it. The spread isn't new anymore. Defenses have caught up, and we all know that the red-zone is one of the main weaknesses of the spread. For instance, we gave up 3 field goals to Ohio State's spread on Saturday in the second half. Our defense is built to stop the spread.
They aren't built to sustain blow after blow from a B-Back, working down the field at 4-7 yards a play. They aren't built to recognize if a slot-back is curl-blocking or actually running a route, and this is what leads to many good gains on the outside for the QB and pitch-back.
It fits right into our recruiting wheel-house. I contend we can always recruit linemen and running backs. We could still get some receivers, but we wouldn't be wasting recruiting time and money trying to beat out the B1G's other heavy-hitters. We're not beating them now, so why play that game? Osborne understood this more than anyone. He recruited the best athletes he could for defense, and focused on linemen and running backs. He focused on development and repetition - the back-up could come in and do a serviceable job if the starter went down. This is a staple of the Flexbone, as well.
A ball-control offense like this helps the defense by keeping it off the field. It moves the chains, works the clock, and gives the defense a breather. Normally. No offense is without its 3-and-outs, of course.
I really could go on and on, but I don't get why everyone wants to keep doing more of the same, and then expect our offense to do better.
Jeremy
New member
I still haven't seen any cogent arguments as to why the Flexbone WOULDN'T work.
Navy won 11 games 2 years ago. 11 games. The last time Nebraska won 11 games was 2001. I know, I know, Navy's competition was trash. 1)They beat Kansas State in the bowl game. Watch it, it was a thing of beauty. 2)Our level of recruiting is in a different galaxy than theirs. 3)If they can do it, so can we. I would argue that nearly every team they play has more talent on their roster than they do.
Last edited by a moderator:
Crusader Husker
New member
This year we ran some wishbone, yes we really did, it is interesting what you can (could) do with it. Since you have so many hybrid guys these days, we can start in the bone, run it, and after they change the personnel, we shift out of it and start throwing. Works great at the HS level. Probably not as much in CFB.
captain_sasquatch
New member
I miss old school smash mouth football as well, but the flexbone will not work at this level. The B1G defenses will eat us alive. We HAVE to be able to pass the ball. Something similar to what Chadwell is doing at CC is the closest we'd get to that.
I'm not sure the current LSU OC is the right answer either. Their offense looks about as inept as ours does.
I'm not sure the current LSU OC is the right answer either. Their offense looks about as inept as ours does.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
Remember when every good defense lined up to stop our running quarterback, and dared us to beat them with his arm?
For the last 20 years or so?
That's what a flexbone will look like in the Big 10.
Even Tom Osborne has said his offense probably wouldn't work against today's defenses.
That doesn't mean we can't run more or better. Every offense will run the ball down an opponent's throat if that's what the defense gives them.
For the last 20 years or so?
That's what a flexbone will look like in the Big 10.
Even Tom Osborne has said his offense probably wouldn't work against today's defenses.
That doesn't mean we can't run more or better. Every offense will run the ball down an opponent's throat if that's what the defense gives them.
The Dude
New member
Maybe the type of offense that built a dynasty here won't work, but we've also won zero championships since we've abandoned it.
We're 15-28 or whatever it is now with the most modern, stylish offense imaginable.
Looking at the results I'd reckon a smashmouth option attack is far and away our best chance at success.
We're 15-28 or whatever it is now with the most modern, stylish offense imaginable.
Looking at the results I'd reckon a smashmouth option attack is far and away our best chance at success.