Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by el corazon del demoni » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:19:30


If I see one more pretty boy studio ***er go off about this
I'm gonna scream. WTF? They've always been one-dimensional.
That was their style. And until recently, it worked. You always
knew what was coming from the 'skers, and you couldn't stop it.
So the problem isn't that people have figured out their offense.
The blueprint's been public knowledge since the LBJ administration.
It's that they no longer have the talent to make it work. And for that,
you have to look at the coaching staff. I think they started getting
some weird idea that they were going to go all "florida" and now
look at the freaking mess.

What really blows is that Colorado isn't in any shape to take advantage
of all this. Damnit.

--
RstJ
GDer...CU '89
(   .   ) (   .   )
Direct from Tampa...the titties you wanted. (SIF)

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Eggm » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:40:12

Despite third degree burns from trying to grill a trout with a downed power
line, "Robert St. James \(el corazon del demonio\)"

Quote:
>If I see one more pretty boy studio ***er go off about this
>I'm gonna scream. WTF? They've always been one-dimensional.
>That was their style. And until recently, it worked. You always
>knew what was coming from the 'skers, and you couldn't stop it.
>So the problem isn't that people have figured out their offense.
>The blueprint's been public knowledge since the LBJ administration.
>It's that they no longer have the talent to make it work. And for that,
>you have to look at the coaching staff. I think they started getting
>some weird idea that they were going to go all "florida" and now
>look at the freaking mess.

>What really blows is that Colorado isn't in any shape to take advantage
>of all this. Damnit.

You know, Irving Fryar did score a touchdown or two.

And Keith Jackson found the end zone once in a while in OU's wishbone.

Eggman

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by el corazon del demoni » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 12:55:59

"Eggman" <....>

Quote:
> Despite third degree burns from trying to grill a trout with a downed power
> line,

Little *** caught fire and lept out of the pan...

<....>

Quote:
> You know, Irving Fryar did score a touchdown or two.

Sure. And every now and again, they ran the "fumble-rooski."
You can have fun when you're leading by lots of points.

Quote:
> And Keith Jackson found the end zone once in a while in OU's wishbone.

What was Oklahoma doing lining up a wishbone in the endzone?
Or was Jackson just drunk again when he claimed he found this.
That old guy, I love him like my dear departed old granpa, but
at least granpa ain't still narrating football games from six feet
under the kirkyard dirt.

--
RstJ
GDer
(   .   ) (   .   )
Direct from Tampa...the titties you wanted. (SIF)

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Kokopel » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:34:51


Quote:
> Despite third degree burns from trying to grill a trout with a downed
power
> line, "Robert St. James \(el corazon del demonio\)"

> >If I see one more pretty boy studio ***er go off about this
> >I'm gonna scream. WTF? They've always been one-dimensional.
> >That was their style. And until recently, it worked. You always
> >knew what was coming from the 'skers, and you couldn't stop it.
> >So the problem isn't that people have figured out their offense.
> >The blueprint's been public knowledge since the LBJ administration.
> >It's that they no longer have the talent to make it work. And for that,
> >you have to look at the coaching staff. I think they started getting
> >some weird idea that they were going to go all "florida" and now
> >look at the freaking mess.

> >What really blows is that Colorado isn't in any shape to take advantage
> >of all this. Damnit.

> You know, Irving Fryar did score a touchdown or two.

> And Keith Jackson found the end zone once in a while in OU's wishbone.

Note that both of them played for teams considered to be among the greatest
in history. Hmm.
dw
 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Kokopel » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:38:10



Quote:
> If I see one more pretty boy studio ***er go off about this
> I'm gonna scream. WTF? They've always been one-dimensional.
> That was their style. And until recently, it worked. You always
> knew what was coming from the 'skers, and you couldn't stop it.
> So the problem isn't that people have figured out their offense.
> The blueprint's been public knowledge since the LBJ administration.
> It's that they no longer have the talent to make it work. And for that,
> you have to look at the coaching staff. I think they started getting
> some weird idea that they were going to go all "florida" and now
> look at the freaking mess.

> What really blows is that Colorado isn't in any shape to take advantage
> of all this. Damnit.

But, in a way, Colorado is. Remember that McCartney saw the writing on the
wall back in '91 and installed a passing game. Now, CU, with 10 years of a
passing offense in their system, is diversified, where Nebraska finds itself
needing to junk its offense and start all over again.

Of course, CU doesn't have the players it needs to execute its balanced
attack right now, but neither does Nebraska. Either way, the Clones are
going to whump our asses.

dw

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by el corazon del demoni » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 13:53:18


Quote:



> > If I see one more pretty boy studio ***er go off about this
> > I'm gonna scream. WTF? They've always been one-dimensional.
> > That was their style. And until recently, it worked. You always
> > knew what was coming from the 'skers, and you couldn't stop it.
> > So the problem isn't that people have figured out their offense.
> > The blueprint's been public knowledge since the LBJ administration.
> > It's that they no longer have the talent to make it work. And for that,
> > you have to look at the coaching staff. I think they started getting
> > some weird idea that they were going to go all "florida" and now
> > look at the freaking mess.

> > What really blows is that Colorado isn't in any shape to take advantage
> > of all this. Damnit.

> But, in a way, Colorado is. Remember that McCartney saw the writing on the
> wall back in '91 and installed a passing game. Now, CU, with 10 years of a
> passing offense in their system, is diversified, where Nebraska finds itself
> needing to junk its offense and start all over again.

Eh? That was *after* his running game had taken him to the national championship
game twice in a row. In fact, I date CU's decline from the day Michael Westbrook
and his descendents drifted onto campus. CU fell in love with the idea of a big
passing game. Look where it got them.

Quote:
> Of course, CU doesn't have the players it needs to execute its balanced
> attack right now, but neither does Nebraska. Either way, the Clones are
> going to whump our asses.

> dw

As proved to be the case. People are too easily dazzled by the Florida
teams and their aerial sheninF7gans. But a look at the box score makes
it clear that they can, and do, run the ball effectively. It all starts on the
ground. Lose that, and you're nowhere.

--
RstJ
GDer
(   .   ) (   .   )
Direct from Tampa...the titties you wanted. (SIF)

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Trent Woodru » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:04:55

Quote:
>Kokopeli was cut from the North Texas football team for saying...
>But, in a way, Colorado is. Remember that McCartney saw the writing on the
>wall back in '91 and installed a passing game. Now, CU, with 10 years of a
>passing offense in their system, is diversified, where Nebraska finds itself
>needing to junk its offense and start all over again.

No, no, no, no, no.  I'll say it one more time for effect...no.

Just find a damn offensive line.  And a defensive line would be nice,
while you're at it.

Trent

They laughed at Galileo.  They laughed at Copernicus.  They laughed at
Columbus.  But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Trent Woodru » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:03:59

Quote:
>Eggman was cut from the North Texas football team for saying...
>You know, Irving Fryar did score a touchdown or two.

Sure, when he wasn't being paid off by the mob.

Quote:
>And Keith Jackson found the end zone once in a while in OU's wishbone.

Keith Jackson can kiss my skinny ass.

Trent

They laughed at Galileo.  They laughed at Copernicus.  They laughed at
Columbus.  But remember, they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Kokopel » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 16:50:07



Quote:




wrote

> > > If I see one more pretty boy studio ***er go off about this
> > > I'm gonna scream. WTF? They've always been one-dimensional.
> > > That was their style. And until recently, it worked. You always
> > > knew what was coming from the 'skers, and you couldn't stop it.
> > > So the problem isn't that people have figured out their offense.
> > > The blueprint's been public knowledge since the LBJ administration.
> > > It's that they no longer have the talent to make it work. And for
that,
> > > you have to look at the coaching staff. I think they started getting
> > > some weird idea that they were going to go all "florida" and now
> > > look at the freaking mess.

> > > What really blows is that Colorado isn't in any shape to take
advantage
> > > of all this. Damnit.

> > But, in a way, Colorado is. Remember that McCartney saw the writing on
the
> > wall back in '91 and installed a passing game. Now, CU, with 10 years of
a
> > passing offense in their system, is diversified, where Nebraska finds
itself
> > needing to junk its offense and start all over again.

> Eh? That was *after* his running game had taken him to the national
championship
> game twice in a row. In fact, I date CU's decline from the day Michael
Westbrook
> and his descendents drifted onto campus.

I date it from the day Skippy Sweatervest was handed the job. He can recruit
the big passing guys, but he can't recruit an O-line or a defense at all.
Once Mac's big boys graduated, you had a WAC team in the Big XII conference.

CU fell in love with the idea of a big

Quote:
> passing game. Look where it got them.

A lot farther than we would have been with the run. I remind you that we won
six straight bowl games with the pass.

Quote:
> > Of course, CU doesn't have the players it needs to execute its balanced
> > attack right now, but neither does Nebraska. Either way, the Clones are
> > going to whump our asses.

> > dw

> As proved to be the case. People are too easily dazzled by the Florida
> teams and their aerial sheninF7gans. But a look at the box score makes
> it clear that they can, and do, run the ball effectively. It all starts on
the
> ground. Lose that, and you're nowhere.

But, with the speed of the secondary, you can't run and win; you have to
have enough of a passing game to keep the defense honest. Nebraska generated
1/2 their offense today on a single pass play where the corners got reeled
in on an option pass.

You run so you can pass. You pass so you can run. You do neither and you're
Tulsa.
dw

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by el corazon del demoni » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 17:16:42

<...CU's decline...>

Quote:
> I date it from the day Skippy Sweatervest was handed the job. He can recruit
> the big passing guys, but he can't recruit an O-line or a defense at all.
> Once Mac's big boys graduated, you had a WAC team in the Big XII conference.

And not a very good one, either.

Quote:

> CU fell in love with the idea of a big
> > passing game. Look where it got them.

> A lot farther than we would have been with the run. I remind you that we won
> six straight bowl games with the pass.

We're not talking powerhourses here, or at least not at that time...

1999    Insight.com    Boston College W62-28
1998    Aloha    OregonW51-43
1996    Holiday    Washington    W33-21
1995    Cotton    Oregon    W38-6
1994    Fiesta    Notre Dame W41-24
1993    Aloha    Fresno State W41-30

<....>

Quote:
> But, with the speed of the secondary, you can't run and win; you have to
> have enough of a passing game to keep the defense honest. Nebraska generated
> 1/2 their offense today on a single pass play where the corners got reeled
> in on an option pass.

It's nice to do both, but c'mon--if your O-line can't swat safeties into the
cheap seats, they need to start beefing up. It wasn't more than a half dozen
years ago that Nebraska bulldozed Florida right out of the way. I'm not sure
what point you're trying to make with the "1/2 their offense." I mean, the
box tells the story: Rushed-yards   30-81. ???? One half of squat-diddly
is, well, either diddly or squat.

Quote:
> You run so you can pass. You pass so you can run. You do neither and you're
> Tulsa.
> dw

Nah, you run, then you run some more. See the Ohio State thread:

Quote:
>> >       Ten of those 12 plays (9 rushes, 1 reception) were
>> >       executed by Maurice Clarett.

That's how you get it done. It's great to have balance. It's even
better not to particularly need it.

--
RstJ
GDer
(   .   ) (   .   )
Direct from Tampa...the titties you wanted. (SIF)

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Eggm » Mon, 30 Sep 2002 22:12:29

Despite third degree burns from trying to grill a trout with a downed power

Quote:
>>Kokopeli was cut from the North Texas football team for saying...

>>But, in a way, Colorado is. Remember that McCartney saw the writing on the
>>wall back in '91 and installed a passing game. Now, CU, with 10 years of a
>>passing offense in their system, is diversified, where Nebraska finds itself
>>needing to junk its offense and start all over again.

>No, no, no, no, no.  I'll say it one more time for effect...no.

>Just find a damn offensive line.

Sure, as long as every player on your team is clearly superior to every
player on the other team, you can win with only one play.  With any luck,
Nebraska will hold to this philosophy for perpetuity (running an offense
based on the premise that every NU player is better than every opposing
player).  I thought the beauty of the option was that it made the defense
stretch to handle an increased number of offensive weapons.  Doesn't the
forward pass (especially the option pass) do the same thing?

Look, KState scored 27 points on a U$C defense that blanked a decent Oregon
State team and held a decent CU team to 3.  Marc Dunn, a drop back passer,
started the game for the Cats and scraped together a couple of first downs
in four possessions in the first quarter.  Then Ell Roberson, the option
became viable and the ball started moving.  But even he couldn't sustain a
drive with his feet.  At some point in the drive $C would guess right and
stuff us, or we'd get a penalty, or they'd just play good D and keep us
from getting 10 yards in 3 plays.  But passing kept drives alive;
particularly the option pass to the tight end dragging across the field.
KState scores more than 27 without five lost fumbles (well, one muffed
kickoff, one muffed punt, two fumbles and one non-fumble (HIS KNEE WAS DOWN
*AND* THE GROUND FORCED THE BALL OUT!!1!)).  So Roberson ends up 10-15 for
134 yards (and 70 yds on the ground).  Not enough for anyone to mistake him
for Dan Marino, but enough to keep the ball moving.  That's all I'm saying.

So I don't understand why you don't embrace the forward pass as part of a
potent offense.  Sure, if your players are good enough you don't need it.
Hell, if your players are good enough you can run a QB sneak straight up
the middle and score every time.  But in today's game it looks to me like
that just isn't going to happen.  Maybe other schools have caught up with
the UNL strength training program.  Maybe Nebraska high schools are turning
out soft offensive lineman.  Whatever the reason, the talent level along
the line doesn't favor the Huskers nearly as much as it used to.  It might
be time to consider a bit of a shift in offensive philosophies because of
that.  Sure it's nice to just line up and mow the other guy under.  But
it's also nice to win games.

Look at Miami.  Does anybody hold their balanced attack in disdain?

Quote:
> And a defensive line would be nice,
>while you're at it.

Immer.

Eggman

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by el corazon del demoni » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:26:03

<...>

Quote:
> So I don't understand why you don't embrace the forward pass as part of a
> potent offense.  Sure, if your players are good enough you don't need it.
> Hell, if your players are good enough you can run a QB sneak straight up
> the middle and score every time.  But in today's game it looks to me like
> that just isn't going to happen.  Maybe other schools have caught up with
> the UNL strength training program.  Maybe Nebraska high schools are turning
> out soft offensive lineman.  Whatever the reason, the talent level along
> the line doesn't favor the Huskers nearly as much as it used to.  It might
> be time to consider a bit of a shift in offensive philosophies because of
> that.  Sure it's nice to just line up and mow the other guy under.  But
> it's also nice to win games.

> Look at Miami.  Does anybody hold their balanced attack in disdain?

Of course not. That's because Miami took the time and trouble to build
a balanced attack that isn't laughable. I don't think anyone has anything
against the forward pass. But I personally have a big problem with coachs
who wake up one fine summer morning and decide that a balanced attack
is somehow inherently superior to all other forms of offense, and proceed
to attempt to build one from the Frankenstein remnants of what was once
a great ground game. ND did this with Powlus and the result was disgraceful.
CU did it with a cadre of top-notch receivers, and the result was, well,
somewhat better, but did not produce any #1 teams. Sure, everybody wants
a shiny new Lexus to drive around. But don't s***the reliable old Mercedes
turbo-diesel until you can actually afford the Lexus. Nebraska, Colorado,
ND under Davie, they all fell in love with becoming Florida clones, and
then couldn't find the talent necessary to actually *be* those teams.

A new offensive style is a tacit admission that your old one wasn't good enough.
Considering that ND, Colorado, and Nebraska won national titles primarily
on the ground, fans rightly wonder why they felt the need to change. Fans rightly
continued wondering when these changes resulted in increasingly futile teams.
While I'm glad I lived long enough to see the Fuskers go face first into the mud
like we have for so many years, there's no glory in defeating a team whose
coaching staff has clearly lost its collective mind.

Maybe they'll surprise me. Maybe they'll turn into the next Oklahoma. But so
far the changes have reduced Nebraska to the laughingstock of the old Big 8,
made CU into what might very well be a sub .500 team this year, and all but
obliterated the Irish until very recently. Some teams just do better with the
emphasis on the ground game. Everyone would  *like* to be Miami, but
very, very few schools can find that kind of talent year after year, and even
less know what to do with it once they do.

--
RstJ
GDer
(   .   ) (   .   )
Direct from Tampa...the titties you wanted. (SIF)

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Eggm » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 00:39:10

Despite third degree burns from trying to grill a trout with a downed power
line, "Robert St. James \(el corazon del demonio\)"

Quote:
><...>
>> So I don't understand why you don't embrace the forward pass as part of a
>> potent offense.  Sure, if your players are good enough you don't need it.
>> Hell, if your players are good enough you can run a QB sneak straight up
>> the middle and score every time.  But in today's game it looks to me like
>> that just isn't going to happen.  Maybe other schools have caught up with
>> the UNL strength training program.  Maybe Nebraska high schools are turning
>> out soft offensive lineman.  Whatever the reason, the talent level along
>> the line doesn't favor the Huskers nearly as much as it used to.  It might
>> be time to consider a bit of a shift in offensive philosophies because of
>> that.  Sure it's nice to just line up and mow the other guy under.  But
>> it's also nice to win games.

>> Look at Miami.  Does anybody hold their balanced attack in disdain?

>Of course not. That's because Miami took the time and trouble to build
>a balanced attack that isn't laughable. I don't think anyone has anything
>against the forward pass. But I personally have a big problem with coachs
>who wake up one fine summer morning and decide that a balanced attack
>is somehow inherently superior to all other forms of offense, and proceed
>to attempt to build one from the Frankenstein remnants of what was once
>a great ground game. ND did this with Powlus and the result was disgraceful.
>CU did it with a cadre of top-notch receivers, and the result was, well,
>somewhat better, but did not produce any #1 teams. Sure, everybody wants
>a shiny new Lexus to drive around. But don't s***the reliable old Mercedes
>turbo-diesel until you can actually afford the Lexus. Nebraska, Colorado,
>ND under Davie, they all fell in love with becoming Florida clones, and
>then couldn't find the talent necessary to actually *be* those teams.

>A new offensive style is a tacit admission that your old one wasn't good enough.
>Considering that ND, Colorado, and Nebraska won national titles primarily
>on the ground, fans rightly wonder why they felt the need to change. Fans rightly
>continued wondering when these changes resulted in increasingly futile teams.
>While I'm glad I lived long enough to see the Fuskers go face first into the mud
>like we have for so many years, there's no glory in defeating a team whose
>coaching staff has clearly lost its collective mind.

>Maybe they'll surprise me. Maybe they'll turn into the next Oklahoma. But so
>far the changes have reduced Nebraska to the laughingstock of the old Big 8,
>made CU into what might very well be a sub .500 team this year, and all but
>obliterated the Irish until very recently. Some teams just do better with the
>emphasis on the ground game. Everyone would  *like* to be Miami, but
>very, very few schools can find that kind of talent year after year, and even
>less know what to do with it once they do.

Ah.  Well maybe we're not as far apart as I thought we might be.

I'm not necessarily arguing for a balanced attack.  Just the ability to
pass successfully from time to time.  Using my KState example, Marc Dunn
should lead a more balanced attack than Ell Roberson.  But since Roberson
is such a better runner, the offense is actually more potent with him,
*providing he can throw with some degree of success*, which he didn't do
last year but did manage against $C.  Thus the Roberson-led offense against
$C was less balanced but more potent.  Nebraska under Crouch (and
apparently under Lord as well) was like last year's KState offense --
excellent running game but couldn't throw a***.  That won't stand up
week-in and week-out against today's top-level programs.

I'm not asking for everybody to turn into Miami.  But I'm saying if your
option quarterback goes 5-15 instead of 10-15, you're gonna be in trouble
more often than not.

Eggman

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by Jefferson N Glapsk » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 01:31:43


Quote:
> >Eggman was cut from the North Texas football team for saying...

> >You know, Irving Fryar did score a touchdown or two.

> Sure, when he wasn't being paid off by the mob.

> >And Keith Jackson found the end zone once in a while in OU's wishbone.

> Keith Jackson can kiss my skinny ass.

The evil Keith Jackson can kiss my pasty fat ass. The good Keith Jackson
should move to the Midwest.

--
Jefferson N. Glapski
http://www.soccersucks.org
WE ARE . . . PENN STATE!

 
 
 

Nebraska's "one dimensional" offense

Post by el corazon del demoni » Tue, 01 Oct 2002 01:39:52

<...>

Quote:
> Ah.  Well maybe we're not as far apart as I thought we might be.

> I'm not necessarily arguing for a balanced attack.  Just the ability to
> pass successfully from time to time.  Using my KState example, Marc Dunn
> should lead a more balanced attack than Ell Roberson.  But since Roberson
> is such a better runner, the offense is actually more potent with him,
> *providing he can throw with some degree of success*, which he didn't do
> last year but did manage against $C.  Thus the Roberson-led offense against
> $C was less balanced but more potent.  Nebraska under Crouch (and
> apparently under Lord as well) was like last year's KState offense --
> excellent running game but couldn't throw a***.  That won't stand up
> week-in and week-out against today's top-level programs.

I'm still mystified by Solich's decision to go with Lord. Crouch, I could
understand, but Lord just doesn't have his speed and I can't believe
he was recruited for his passing ability. Is the roster really so poor that
there's not another Tommy Frazier coming up through the ranks? Anyway,
Frazier's my main point in case: couldn't really throw all that well, wasn't
expected to, still won lots of games. And even when he went down, they
kept on winning because their offense wasn't totally dependent on the QB.
But, I digress...

Quote:
> I'm not asking for everybody to turn into Miami.  But I'm saying if your
> option quarterback goes 5-15 instead of 10-15, you're gonna be in trouble
> more often than not.

> Eggman

I think the real problem is the O-line and the almost total lack of a credible
pitch-man. Option football doesn't work if you can put a safety ten yards
off the pitch man and keep him covered because the QB isn't going to pitch
back. I don't know if somebody lost that page of the playbook or what happened,
but yeah, when your offense is totally dependent on your QB's feet, you aren't
going anywhere w/o a Crouch at that position. And Lord doesn't come close.

I've talked myself full-circle: Neb *is* one-dimensional: the QB versus
the World. So far, the World is kicking their ass.

--
RstJ
GDer
(   .   ) (   .   )
Direct from Tampa...the titties you wanted. (SIF)