What did we learn-Wyoming edition

admo said:
junior4949 said:
This is where the power running guys are coming from. A lot of our success and failure as a team now heavily rests on Armstrong. The power running game guys would like to see an offense where you take a lot of that pressure off of the QB like we did in the 90's and like Bama does now. Unfortunately, it isn't quite that easy. I doubt we ever get the OL like Bama gets and like what we were producing in-state back then. We don't have to run just a certain offense to be successful. We just have to get the best guys we can get and run an offense with a purpose or identity if you will.
Click to expand...
Ok just going to throw this out there...

A lot of our success and failure as a team now and in recent years, heavily rests on athletic-style quarterbacks (Armstrong, TMartinez), a JUCO (ZLee), a gutsy-gambler (Ganz), a transfer (Keller), another JUCO (ZTaylor), and a Joe Dailey. Plus a few walkons in the mix.

And there have been some great running backs to help but in a lesser role.

Or something kinda like that.
Click to expand...
Even if we accept the premise that those guys weren't great QBs (I disagree, but let's accept it for sake of argument), isn't the "pro-mobile QB/Run-Oriented" argument proven correct by the fact that we won .700+ of our games during that period, even including a year when we lost our starting SR and forced a freshman and walkon into action?

 
fb30 said:
I don't remember getting clobbered by Colorado?
Click to expand...
in 1990 we led Colorado 12-0 after 3. They won 27-12. We then lost to unranked Oklahoma 45-10 and Ga Tech 45-24. But yeah. Osboren was Jesus and the option killed cancer so we actually we never lost
Nebraska had fallen to 3rd in the Big 8 pecking order. The tie in Boulder in 91 actually felt like an accomplishment

 
God you're dense. We did it with much higher rated recruiting classes also. Maybe you should take a look at what our coach did during that time frame at Oregon State.

 
this thread has turned into an incredible

dumpsterfire.png


 
I sort a broke down the competition level for Navy earlier int he thread. Their overall record, then their record for year against P5 opponents, whcih included notre dame and boulw games. What was noteworthy was not only their usual losing record against P5's over the past decade, but the number of actual P5's they actually played.

Here's the deal. if youre gonna ignore this and credit Navy for their "accomplishments" then Boise better be gettin some damn high praise as well. Boise is way ahead of Navy in terms of accomplishment. But I bet no one'll wanna go there, will they? Why? pretty simple. Boise doesnt run the option...........

I stand on my premise in all this. I dont care about the circumstances. If you cant consider the circumstances for Nebraska, or for Riley at Oregon St, then you cant for Navy. be consistent at least. Navy aint dun sh#t.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cm husker said:
BRV920 said:
The only thing that changed between 90 team and the 94 team was the defense. Very little changed on the offensive side of the ball. Also why do you guys always imply that I don't want to pass the ball? I want to, but not as the foundation of my offense.
Click to expand...
Count said:
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.
Click to expand...
Osborne constantly changed tactics, but he never changed strategy.

Any student of Nebraska history knows he talked constantly about his process and priorities, and first and foremost, he was run-oriented (and by the late 70s, he wanted a mobile QB because he understood the pressure that places on a D).

You're making things up about tempo, but I agree that his concepts, especially in the zone option game, are the basis of the best offenses today.

Oh, and that just reinforces the central point, which is that we should emulate the best offenses of today, not chase a dying paradigm of "balanced" offense, which apparently means 20 or so rush attempts up the middle with no diversity or diversion at all, mixed with 30 pass attempts (of which some will turn into scrambles).
Click to expand...
If you want to see balanced offense look at the Patriots and how they moved the ball against Arizona. That was play action as crisp as I have ever seen it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
He's a fun project since we want to nitpick what Navy's done. Why don't we look at the recruiting rankings of all the teams we lost to last year. That should be educational.

 
Back
Top