What did we learn-Wyoming edition

BRV - I completely agree that we currently don't compare.

Again, my point: We'll see how their "power run offense" does against Meyer, D'Antonio, and Harbaugh. I don't see Wisconsin winning conference titles any time soon. And it's not because they don't field good defenses - It's because their offenses usually don't score many points in big games.

 
But at any rate...as it pertains to our team this season, what we really need is to tighten up our defense and make sure that Tommy doesn't turn the ball over.

With those two things in check, I think we can be the best team in the West. Offensive "scheme" this season isn't the main problem standing in our way of getting to Indy...not by a long shot.

 
BRV920 said:
My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.
Click to expand...
That's true of pretty much every offense. Even TO needed a top-notch QB to win the big games.

For all the talk about offensive style, playing good to great defense matters a great deal more, especially if we're talking about consistency.

 
BRV920 said:
I think that everybody is aware that coaches make adjustments to their offense and defense. The philosophy of a physical running game stayed throughout.

Wisconsin is living proof that it still works in today's college game. Yes I'm aware that Wisconsin throws the ball but the foundation of their offense is physical running with a dominating line. One could argue that outside of Russell Wilson that are getting it done with worse QB play than we are.
Click to expand...
I seen this post and it immediately made me think that yea thats right! Wisconsin beat a very talented LSU team. But then I think wait a minute. LSU is the definition of power run game, only throw the ball off of play action or necessity. LSU is probably more talented at every position than 95% of teams in the FBS.

The fact of the matter is that talent or scheme can only get you so far. A coach has to have the right players to fit his scheme or it will never work at a championship level. Devaney and Osborne both did an excellent job at finding those players.

But times have changed. Years ago most high school programs ran an option based offense that fit right in line with what they did. Now a days thats not really the case. Fewer and fewer programs are putting those option QBs at wide receiver and using a strong armed kid to get them the ball quickly and let them make an athletic play. Kids arent' as familiar with the option game and power run game as they used to be. I realize that kind of game still exists all over the country in high school still, however it seems to be utilized by smaller schools as bigger high schools seem to prefer the spread offense more and more.

So after all of that I guess my point is that if your going to run the kind of offense a lot of us would like to see, I think its going to continue to get harder and harder to find recruits that 1. fit your scheme and 2. are familiar with it and want to play in it.

 
RedDenver said:
BRV920 said:
My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.
Click to expand...
That's true of pretty much every offense. Even TO needed a top-notch QB to win the big games.

For all the talk about offensive style, playing good to great defense matters a great deal more, especially if we're talking about consistency.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between .500 and a game away from a championship.

Though, admittedly, a lot of Nebraska fans seem to think there is no difference.

 
cm husker said:
People keep saying "there's more than one way to get it done" and "we need the ability to be all things at all times on offense, so we can switch it up when needed."

The reality is that there is very little evidence that those statements are true at Nebraska. Similar to a Baylor or Oregon or many other "just below tier one talent" programs, the differentiator will be scheme. And a "balanced" scheme that employs a vanilla rushing attack won't be a differentiator and will not consistently win in the way Husker fans hope to.
Click to expand...
you say theres little evidence to prove it right. I say theres little evidence to prove it wrong.

cm husker said:
RedDenver said:
BRV920 said:
My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.
Click to expand...
That's true of pretty much every offense. Even TO needed a top-notch QB to win the big games.

For all the talk about offensive style, playing good to great defense matters a great deal more, especially if we're talking about consistency.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between .500 and a game away from a championship.

Though, admittedly, a lot of Nebraska fans seem to think there is no difference.
Click to expand...
here we go............

 
cm husker said:
The reality is that there is very little evidence that those statements are true at Nebraska. Similar to a Baylor or Oregon or many other "just below tier one talent" programs, the differentiator will be scheme. And a "balanced" scheme that employs a vanilla rushing attack won't be a differentiator and will not consistently win in the way Husker fans hope to.
Click to expand...
Mark D'Antonio says "hello."

 
Count 'Bility said:
cm husker said:
People keep saying "there's more than one way to get it done" and "we need the ability to be all things at all times on offense, so we can switch it up when needed."

The reality is that there is very little evidence that those statements are true at Nebraska. Similar to a Baylor or Oregon or many other "just below tier one talent" programs, the differentiator will be scheme. And a "balanced" scheme that employs a vanilla rushing attack won't be a differentiator and will not consistently win in the way Husker fans hope to.
Click to expand...
you say theres little evidence to prove it right. I say theres little evidence to prove it wrong.

cm husker said:
RedDenver said:
BRV920 said:
My problem with Riley's offense is that I think it's going to prove to be inconsistent. Lots of peaks and valleys depending on QB play. I personally believe it's why he is a career .500 coach. Not saying he isn't a great X and O guy because I think he is.
Click to expand...
That's true of pretty much every offense. Even TO needed a top-notch QB to win the big games.

For all the talk about offensive style, playing good to great defense matters a great deal more, especially if we're talking about consistency.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between .500 and a game away from a championship.

Though, admittedly, a lot of Nebraska fans seem to think there is no difference.
Click to expand...
here we go............
Click to expand...
why do you bother arguing with CardinalMooney husker?

 
I love the whole times have changed argument. I remember when they said the the game has passed Osborne by while we were in the midst of a 7 game bowl losing streak. We all know how that turned out. Navy is a great example of what can be accomplished when you establish a identity for you team and then build and recruit for it. They routinely beat teams with far more talent.

 
fb30 said:
Who cares what Mich. St. Is doing. Let's do what we do.
Click to expand...
This thread devolved into the typical "stuck in 1994" type of Husker fan saying that the only way we can be successful is to have a power run identity.

Michigan State is one of the most impressive points of references for a cold weather school, fielding a relatively large amount of three stars BUT recruits good quarterbacks and offensive skill players that runs a pretty vanilla pro style offense in the college game. But their success in the "pound-for-pound" category is in my opinion as impressive as any program in the country.

Aspiring to be copy the current Wisconsin template on offense (which was kind of alluded to up the page) just probably isn't going to be enough to win in Indy with what MSU, Ohio State, and Michigan are currently putting together in my opinion.

Mark D'Antonio hasn't had good success lately and moved his team consistently into the top 10 by only centering around the run. My point is that I really like the trajectory of the offensive skill player recruiting that Riley and his staff seem to have. I'm shooting much higher than "just being Wisconsin," although as I've said - they've recently fielded better teams than we have.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BRV920 said:
I love the whole times have changed argument. I remember when they said the the game has passed Osborne by while we were in the midst of a 7 game bowl losing streak. We all know how that turned out. Navy is a great example of what can be accomplished when you establish a identity for you team and then build and recruit for it. They routinely beat teams with far more talent.
Click to expand...
When they were saying the game passed Osborne by, it wasnt simply him sticking to his plan that led to 60-3. he didnt just simply stick with it and prove everyone wrong. There were other significant changes made to just about every single other facet of the program from the defensive plan to what the players were eating for an afternoon snack. So this is another false perception "Osborne ran the option and made it work, so we should do it today". He didnt sxclusively "make it work". He made changes to numerous other areas that allowed for the whole system to work. At a very dominant level. And he didnt line up in the i pro and pound it 50 times a game. he didnt line up in the ace and run spring option 50 times a game either. He did a little bit of everything and when games were still in doubt (which in them days, was not long) he was throwing a lot more than ppl wanna remember, cuz it's inconvenient for the run-the-ball guy's argument. Osborne was doing things with spread concepts and the option and tempo way back then long before Chip kelly and his genius ever came along.

 
Back
Top