Is Nebraska about to run our D's nightmare offense?

[olddude]

Florida was good with Tebow, then you don't hear about them. Auburn was good with Newton, probably won't hear about them again. If these teams get the right player to run the spread then they are set, but if not, they aren't the best. I believe that when we lose it isn't because of the D, we never score a lot. In the last 3 years the most points we gave up to a team was 34 against Arizona last year. We gave up 31 to Wisconsin last year. Those were the only two games in the last 3 years we gave up more than 30 points. Think of it this way, if the offense scored 30 a game like a lot of schools do, they would be 34-2 in the last three years not counting bowl games. If you think 30 is hard to get it is just a touchdown every quarter plus a field goal somewhere in between and you are at 31. That being said we don't score 30 a game so it's just wishful thinking.

Spot on. Heres to hoping this year, we dont have a slide in D to much and a big improvement on O. Could be a good year.

 

[stevoskin]

Spot on. Heres to hoping this year, we dont have a slide in D to much and a big improvement on O. Could be a good year.

It could be a good year, I think it depends on Coker's health and if Vandy can step in where Ricky left off. Also if the D line doesn't lose too much production. If everything is clicking by the end of out of conference play other teams better watch out.

 

[tm3308]

The teams you mentioned scored 21, 20, 17, 17, 7 & 16 points in their last meeting vs Iowa.
That's an average of 14.7pt/gm, 4 of which Iowa won.
The problems that Iowa has are rarely defense related.
I think its a common belief that Iowa fares better against the PSU's & Wisconsin type offenses but I don't know that the numbers really support it.

With that said, I too wish Iowa would be a little more multiple on defense.
But I'll take what Norm delivers almost every year.

It's not always about the score. Northwestern in particular plays keepaway. They may only score 17 points, but we can't ever get their offense off the field. They consistently hang onto the ball, which puts more pressure on each of our offensive possessions, because we don't get as many as usual. And then when we make a mistake or two on offense, we're screwed.

 

[MultipleDundieAwardWinner]

What I define a spread as is
A. You have no one in the back field, but the qb
B. You rely on a qb who is qwick and decides to run it, leaving him on the sidelines for atleast part of the season. Persa, T-mart again the list goes on and on.

They have names for all the positions for a reason. It is a mans sport.

Perhaps the handle "olddude' " is appropriate, since you still seem to think that CFB should be played the same way it was in the 70's.

For one, your description of the spread is really, laughably wrong (Dextermorgan nailed it). Two, you seem to have this impression that no one can win runnign a spread, when in reality ANYONE who wins runs the spread, to some degree. And finally, your implication that anyone who runs the spread is less than manly, and then give two examples? You know there are tons more great spread QBs who never get hurt.

 

[goiahawks]

If by spread you mean giving the ball to Burkhead 70% of the time, then yeah Nebraska runs a spread. I would not consider them a spread offense. Oh yeah...F Nebraska!

 

[trj]

O RLY?



What about these responses?



Then by your definition no team in college football runs the spread, that I can think of. All teams use spread FORMATIONS, but I'm almost sure that every team in Div 1A lists at least a RB in their starting lineup...I'm struggling to come up with a team that uses Empty as their base formation.

Mike Leach's T. Tech teams

Houston Cougars???? Recently with Keenum and when they ran the run and shoot in the late 80's, early 90's

June Jones is a run and shoot guy. Hawaii/SMU??????

 

[forcheyhawk]

If by spread you mean giving the ball to Burkhead 70% of the time, then yeah Nebraska runs a spread. I would not consider them a spread offense. Oh yeah...F Nebraska!

Read the article about Nebraska. I think most on the board understand that they aren't currently running the spread. The article indicates that through a promotion of RB coach that they might be implementing a more up tempo style with some short quick passes. The OP is referring to that.

 

[olddude]

Perhaps the handle "olddude' " is appropriate, since you still seem to think that CFB should be played the same way it was in the 70's.

For one, your description of the spread is really, laughably wrong (Dextermorgan nailed it). Two, you seem to have this impression that no one can win runnign a spread, when in reality ANYONE who wins runs the spread, to some degree. And finally, your implication that anyone who runs the spread is less than manly, and then give two examples? You know there are tons more great spread QBs who never get hurt.

Yea me and all the nfl. There is a reason qb's dont run the ball and there is a reason they do, there is a reason they have RB's in the backfield, so there is a reason they dont.
Your not going to sit there and try and say that a 180 pound qb trying to run the ball does not face more injury risk than if he didnt are you? Or are you trying to say everyone who does it has sucess? Or are you trying to say that team is not relying heavily on one player? Or are you saying forget it and get rid of the FB and RB positions?
Think about what I said earlier, pro teams have invested BILLIONS and BILLIONS figuring out what works best as far as yearly and year to year ability to win games. If the "spread" or what ever you want to call those "trickery" O's worked they would be doing it.
Yes you can have some sucess doing it, Mich, Nebraska and so on, but overall it's not sound football, it's not football that will provide sustained sucess.
I would have loved to see Auburn play Whiskey last year and the first time that scam tried to run it, plant him 6ft under. What happens then? Auburn forfits?

 

[hawkfan2679]

Mike Leach's T. Tech teams

Houston Cougars???? Recently with Keenum and when they ran the run and shoot in the late 80's, early 90's

June Jones is a run and shoot guy. Hawaii/SMU??????

Leach almost always used a RB. Run and shoot teams spend most of their time in 2x2 with a RB, whether under center or in the gun. I could be wrong, but those Houston teams in the late 80's/early 90's were under center? Andre Ware, David Klingler, etc.

 

[hawkfan2679]

I would help you out, but as a fan of the Hawks I can not. Look at how Missery lined up to us in our bowl (have you seen it?). If you cared to watch the game, the announcer says "misserys RB is RB by vote of the team members".
Dont come at me with weak stuff.
The Sec is just a notch above the B10, Reason why is they have good O-lines. Their QB's dont have to run, because they have a decent arm. They are given the option of passing or running by their O-line. BUT the fact remains, if the QB goes down, so does the season. Again look at the PRO set. Or the pro's. Look at Vandy in OH, thats how it's done. Not Hanging it all on one player. How many other teams could send it into OT with a #2 freshman at the helm in the shoe? I am guessing not to many that run the types of O's I desrcibed in a eariler post.
Pay attention Wiskey!!!!!!!

Teams line up like that against us because we don't adjust to it. I think Wisconsin and MSU used some empty set against us for that reason as well, although they used base personnel to do so.

I will agree with you to an extent, that the "spread" is the most QB-centric offense there is. It'd be a lot like a team that ran a ton of I form, power between the tackles losing their #1 I-back. Sure, the backup might talented, but he's the backup for a reason. Not a great comparison, because there is more to being a QB than a power back, but again, the QB-centricity (word?) of the spread isn't really in question, at least by me.

 

[olddude]

Read the article about Nebraska. I think most on the board understand that they aren't currently running the spread. The article indicates that through a promotion of RB coach that they might be implementing a more up tempo style with some short quick passes. The OP is referring to that.

Now and I admit my definition of the spread includes alot of trickery O's and I know thats not right. Sorry cant keep up with the flavor of the month. But on Nebraska, Helu 188 for 1245, T-mart 162 for 965 (he was hurt or he would have even carried it more) Rex 172 for 951.
So between two backs and the qb, the qb had 31% of the carries. Now mix in the passing plays and what percent of the O depends on that one guy? Yes it's the same with pro set also, but they are not getting flattened by LB's on 31% of the plays.

 

[hawkfan2679]

If the "spread" or what ever you want to call those "trickery" O's worked they would be doing it.
Yes you can have some sucess doing it, Mich, Nebraska and so on, but overall it's not sound football, it's not football that will provide sustained sucess, only flashes of it.
I would have loved to see Auburn play Whiskey last year and the first time that scam tried to run it, plant him 6ft under. What happens then? Auburn forfits?

To the bolded section...the spread isn't a "trickery" offense. In college the spread is used by "smaller" schools who can't recruit the big-time kids to level the playing field or used by the larger schools to try to widen the talent gap. In the NFL, that talent gap is all but eliminated because everyone is fast, strong and disciplined (relatively speaking).

How isn't it sound football? I'd love to hear this explanation.

Remember that time that non-BCS spread team made it to the Rose Bowl to play a favored Wisconsin team? That went well for Wisc...oh wait, no it didn't. Cam Newton was bigger than probably all but 5 of Wisconsin's defensive players...just sayin'

 

[olddude]

Teams line up like that against us because we don't adjust to it. I think Wisconsin and MSU used some empty set against us for that reason as well, although they used base personnel to do so.

I will agree with you to an extent, that the "spread" is the most QB-centric offense there is. It'd be a lot like a team that ran a ton of I form, power between the tackles losing their #1 I-back. Sure, the backup might talented, but he's the backup for a reason. Not a great comparison, because there is more to being a QB than a power back, but again, the QB-centricity (word?) of the spread isn't really in question, at least by me.

Sort of, the only team with any measureable amount of sucess against us is Northwestern.
As I pointed out T-mart had a 31% carry rate splitting the att's with 2 backs. With his passing stats mixed in, it's no wonder when he went so did the season. ON the other hand Teams like Wiskey and Iowa (with RB gods permission) can stay in games by pounding the rock.

 

[olddude]

To the bolded section...the spread isn't a "trickery" offense. In college the spread is used by "smaller" schools who can't recruit the big-time kids to level the playing field or used by the larger schools to try to widen the talent gap. In the NFL, that talent gap is all but eliminated because everyone is fast, strong and disciplined (relatively speaking).

How isn't it sound football? I'd love to hear this explanation.

Remember that time that non-BCS spread team made it to the Rose Bowl to play a favored Wisconsin team? That went well for Wisc...oh wait, no it didn't. Cam Newton was bigger than probably all but 5 of Wisconsin's defensive players...just sayin'

Well, when Persa went down so did Northwestern, when T-mart went down so did Nebraska. When a-rob went down then, then then and you still win your bowl game. Thats sustained sucess. Thats sound football.
I agree, most of the time that type of O is used by programs trying to compete and rebuild at the same time. The ones that dont have to are winging it, just to try and have a flash of sucess, why do you think so many sec teams have made it to the NC? What no one can repeat? Infact I dont think to many have that great of seasons for awhile afterwards. Now besides not having a qb lined up (way to drop the ball Bret), Wiskey looks to do well again this year, again sound football. Now that the sec wont be doing as much over signing, I fully expect you will see the tides shift and the B10 (with mostly balanced and sound teams) will be on top. Now I dont think Northwestern will be one, I dont think Mich running what they have been will be one and so on. Yes they could have a good year now and again, but thats about it.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Well, when Persa went down so did Northwestern, when T-mart went down so did Nebraska. When a-rob went down then, then then and you still win your bowl game. Thats sustained sucess. Thats sound football.
I agree, most of the time that type of O is used by programs trying to compete and rebuild at the same time. The ones that dont have to are winging it, just to try and have a flash of sucess, why do you think so many sec teams have made it to the NC? What no one can repeat? Infact I dont think to many have that great of seasons for awhile afterwards. Now besides not having a qb lined up (way to drop the ball Bret), Wiskey looks to do well again this year, again sound football. Now that the sec wont be doing as much over signing, I fully expect you will see the tides shift and the B10 (with mostly balanced and sound teams) will be on top. Now I dont think Northwestern will be one, I dont think Mich running what they have been will be one and so on. Yes they could have a good year now and again, but thats about it.

Considering A-Rob was hardly the cog in our wheel, I don't know that we're completely comparing apples to apples. From a pure running perspective, A-Rob wasn't even the best back on the team.

I thought your "sound football" mention was somehow related to the schematics of the offense. To me, sustained success isn't about sound football (well, it is, but not in the sense that you are using it IMO). It's about recruiting and coaching. No matter what you run, whether it's pro, spread, double wing, triple option, etc, if you can recruit the guys that fit the system and coach them up, you are going to have sustained success. The reason some of these schools use the spread is that there are a lot more small kids who can run 4.6-4.7 and play in space than there are huge OL who can drive block and pass block against equally (often times more) athletic players.

It's laughable that the SEC teams are just winging it for a chance at success. Alabama isn't a spread team, so they don't really fit. Are you considering LSU a spread team? Since they won the BCS Championship in 2003 they are 71-20, or an average of 10-3, including another BCS championship. Florida won 2 national championships in the last 5 years...I could see Auburn dropping off, but simply because Cam Newton was such a dynamic player. Auburn probably didn't have any business being in that position last year, but he propelled them to those heights (eligible or not).

 

[olddude]

Considering A-Rob was hardly the cog in our wheel, I don't know that we're completely comparing apples to apples. From a pure running perspective, A-Rob wasn't even the best back on the team.

I thought your "sound football" mention was somehow related to the schematics of the offense. To me, sustained success isn't about sound football (well, it is, but not in the sense that you are using it IMO). It's about recruiting and coaching. No matter what you run, whether it's pro, spread, double wing, triple option, etc, if you can recruit the guys that fit the system and coach them up, you are going to have sustained success. The reason some of these schools use the spread is that there are a lot more small kids who can run 4.6-4.7 and play in space than there are huge OL who can drive block and pass block against equally (often times more) athletic players.

It's laughable that the SEC teams are just winging it for a chance at success. Alabama isn't a spread team, so they don't really fit. Are you considering LSU a spread team? Since they won the BCS Championship in 2003 they are 71-20, or an average of 10-3, including another BCS championship. Florida won 2 national championships in the last 5 years...I could see Auburn dropping off, but simply because Cam Newton was such a dynamic player. Auburn probably didn't have any business being in that position last year, but he propelled them to those heights (eligible or not).

Yep and if Cam goes, so goes the season. Thats not sound and neither is your QB being responsable for 20 to 30% or more of the rushing yards and all the passing yards. Pretty much hinges on one player. Thats a huge risk. If you had talent at all positions (sound football) why would you take that risk? I'll say it again that kind of O belongs in HS, when you just dont have enough talent to compete and have to let it all ride on a few good players.
As far as Wiskey and the Rose, it is pretty much 100% agreed that had they stuck to "sound" football, they would have won.
Like I said you take away the oversigning and things will start to look different within the SEC, why do you think ALL the SEC coaches were against it?
People think those O's are so good and make for high scoring, but as an earlier post shows, when playing a sound team, they are not high scoring. As I stated earlier, sec qb's can run or throw and are given that option by a good O line. So they bank alot on their O's. Take away 6 or so recruits every year and replacing those O lineman and running qb's, when someone gets injuried and atleast trying to hang on D gets a little tougher. We know the B10 can hang with them on D and some would say we are better than they are on D. So if their O suffers the most from the new recruiting guidlines, what does that say about that kind of ball and the odds they continue to keep on top? I wont even get started on how many teams use this type of O and thereby the odds favoring a team that runs that type of O making it to the NC. I will say more teams fail runnig it than suceed and there is a reason why.

 

[HomerChampless]

You know, with many arguments like these, many Iowa football fans prefer ideology to winning. IOW, many Iowa fans prefer how a team plays to winning. What is that ideology, anyway, and why is it more important than winning?
If you like the defense's scheme, you'll automatically blame the offense. If you're one of the handfull of Iowa fans who likes the offense, you'll blame the defense.

I'm saying winning games and how a team plays should be of equal importantance. Neither goal should be put above the other.

Proponents of Parker's defense against spreads like NW, point to stats - the closeness of scores.
IMO, let me show an equally important stat - wins and loses. Iowa has got to do something different if it wants to beat NW.

 

[hawkfan2679]

Yep and if Cam goes, so goes the season. Thats not sound and neither is your QB being responsable for 20 to 30% or more of the rushing yards and all the passing yards. Pretty much hinges on one player. Thats a huge risk. If you had talent at all positions (sound football) why would you take that risk? I'll say it again that kind of O belongs in HS, when you just dont have enough talent to compete and have to let it all ride on a few good players.
As far as Wiskey and the Rose, it is pretty much 100% agreed that had they stuck to "sound" football, they would have won.
Like I said you take away the oversigning and things will start to look different within the SEC, why do you think ALL the SEC coaches were against it?

To the bolded...you could also say that if Gabbert doesn't gift us a pick Missouri wins the Insight Bowl. Or if Belcher catches that ball in the end zone Indiana beats Iowa. Fact is, neither of those things happened and the fact remains that TCU beat Wisconsin, just like Iowa beat Missouri and Iowa beat Indiana.

I already said that the spread is the most QB-centric system there is. What else do you want me to say? It's not just a HS offense because teams are winning national championships with it...you continue to recruit QB's who are adept at running the spread, you are going to get guys who are able to be "next main in" in the event someone (i.e. the QB) gets injured.

I'm going to give you my definition of sound football because what you are calling sound football doesn't even resemble what I call sound football. Sound football is blocking, tackling, and discipline. It has very little to do with having lots of talented players. It has an effect on sustained success, but one must have one to beget the other. Having talent at all positions doesn't mean much if you can't block or tackle. Again, I think you are talking about sound recruiting.

There are a lot of guys on this board who think Iowa's injury issues at RG last year are the reason we closed the season so horribly. Perhaps we should defame the 'pro-style' offense because if you lose 1 OL, the season goes to hell.

 

[hawkfan2679]

You know, with many arguments like these, many Iowa football fans prefer ideology to winning. IOW, many Iowa fans prefer how a team plays to winning. What is that ideology, anyway, and why is it more important than winning?
If you like the defense's scheme, you'll automatically blame the offense. If you're one of the handfull of Iowa fans who likes the offense, you'll blame the defense.

I'm saying winning games and how a team plays should be of equal importantance. Neither goal should be put above the other.

Proponents of Parker's defense against spreads like NW, point to stats - the closeness of scores.
IMO, let me show an equally important stat - wins and loses. Iowa has got to do something different if it wants to beat NW.

I think it's due to the fact that 'how we play' against these spread, no huddle teams directly inhibits our chances at winning. At least that's my best guess...

I disagree slightly with the bolded...winning games should always be #1. However, from week to week the manner in which that goal is attained will directly involve how a team plays. That's not to say things be completely reinvented each week as that would result in a catastrophic failure, but doing the little things that put our players in the best chances to succeed.

That might sound like it's picking on the defense a little bit, but I can recall vividly watching the UNI game from last year (well, 2009 I guess). UNI appeared to be daring Stanzi to beat them...they brought 8 guys into the box on almost every snap and they weren't trying to hide it. Yet we tried to keep running our normal zone plays and as we all know, with a Ferentz team for whatever reason, we're not ready to play early in the season, so the OL was not great. However, with their 8 in the box, UNI was playing a very soft cover 3 pass defense. Instead of throwing the quick, short stuff on running downs to take some of the pressure off, they kept trying to run it into a stacked box. Finally, in the second half, the offensive staff took the shackles off Stanzi and let him air it out. I think he was something like 16/20 for almost 200 yards in the 2nd half alone. It was maddening to watch...it's almost like we were determined to win it our way, common sense be damned.

 

[olddude]

To the bolded...you could also say that if Gabbert doesn't gift us a pick Missouri wins the Insight Bowl. Or if Belcher catches that ball in the end zone Indiana beats Iowa. Fact is, neither of those things happened and the fact remains that TCU beat Wisconsin, just like Iowa beat Missouri and Iowa beat Indiana.

I already said that the spread is the most QB-centric system there is. What else do you want me to say? It's not just a HS offense because teams are winning national championships with it...you continue to recruit QB's who are adept at running the spread, you are going to get guys who are able to be "next main in" in the event someone (i.e. the QB) gets injured.

I'm going to give you my definition of sound football because what you are calling sound football doesn't even resemble what I call sound football. Sound football is blocking, tackling, and discipline. It has very little to do with having lots of talented players. It has an effect on sustained success, but one must have one to beget the other. Having talent at all positions doesn't mean much if you can't block or tackle. Again, I think you are talking about sound recruiting.

There are a lot of guys on this board who think Iowa's injury issues at RG last year are the reason we closed the season so horribly. Perhaps we should defame the 'pro-style' offense because if you lose 1 OL, the season goes to hell.

I agree with coaching and blocking as sound football, mabey I should say a sound program. To your point about dropped passes and such, yes if you rely on being pass happy the risk of int's or drops goes up, if you reley to much on a qb who not only has to manage and pass but also run, the risk of said qb coughing up the ball, goes up and so on. Thats why I was saying the pros do what they do for a reason, it lowers the odds of having massive failures or break downs.
I guess in the B10 especially, it comes down to, you can try it and fail umpteen times, then you might have a good year. Or you can play like Wiskey/Iowa and compete for it every year. Now I have to assume it is the same in all cfb. Throw two teams like Iowa/Wiskey into the B12 or sec and see how many teams go from being ranked high to leaving a big fat one by the end of the year. Missery was ranked pretty high and couldnt get it done. TCU was #1 D if I remember right and barely got it done and like I said I think that was coaching/play calling on Wiskeys side more than it was being out played.