• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Football Theory Question for all

Status
Not open for further replies.
Armchair

Armchair

Husker Die Hard
15 Year Member
For sake of discussion... You're granted Tom Osbornes offensive playbook circa 1995-1997. You also have McBrides defensive schemes same era. You are given a team of players recruited to suit, and the wisdom of how best to use the playbook.

Would this offense, and defense still be successful today?
 

Success = (Edited) Whatever you feel success should be.
 
Last edited:



Okay.

I am going to assume that these players are good but this is their first year. We are going to need to keep me around coaching these guys for a minimum of six years. With good fortune we will win one CCG and be in the top ten the last two years. If they expand the playoffs to eight teams by the end of the fourth year we will have had a chance to play for the MNC twice.

It will cost you a lot of money to keep me around after year six.
 
Armchair said:
For sake of discussion... You're granted Tom Osbornes offensive playbook circa 1995-1997. You also have McBrides defensive schemes same era. You are given a team of players recruited to suit, and the wisdom of how best to use the playbook.

Would this offense, and defense still be successful today?
Click to expand...

Dominant.
 
I'll expand on why I ask the question. Recently had the opportunity to re-watch the 95 Huskers against the Florida Gators, and the 97 squad against Payton Manning's Tennessee Volunteers. We looked shockingly good in both games, on both sides of the ball.

Despite going out on top, it was frequently said the game of football had passed Osborne by. Had it? Have there been any major rule changes, scheme changes, or any other great seismic shift that would preclude continued success?

Are there any teams out there, that are mimicking the Huskers of this era? And if not, why?
 
Are Osborne and McBride calling the plays that were players prepared for under the tutelage of their staff?

Absolutely dominant. Those teams would be just as dominant today as they were in the 90s.

And no, if anything, the game has moved toward what Osborne ran offensively. TO ran a bunch of single back and "spread" type formations in the 90s.

However, the difference between TO's offense and say an Oregon spread is the reliance on dominant downhill running. People recall the option, but TO's "bread and butter" was the iso and other between the tackles running plays. The offense expanded out from there.

I'd say Malzahn's offensive philosophy is pretty similar to TO's, as is Paul Johnson's sytem (though both are out of different base formations (though TO was starting to tradition out of the I formation when he retired).
 
Last edited:




Armchair said:
For sake of discussion... You're granted Tom Osbornes offensive playbook circa 1995-1997. You also have McBrides defensive schemes same era. You are given a team of players recruited to suit, and the wisdom of how best to use the playbook.

Would this offense, and defense still be successful today?
Click to expand...

Absolutely successful if the team committed to it. Without a doubt. If you have a dominant ground game and a dominant defense, there's really not much need for a "sophisticated" passing game.

Those that suggested the game had passed Osborne by either didn't understand and/or never had to face the Big Red Thrashing Machine.

People think that the offense was simple, but it deserves more credit than that. It was very detail oriented, and Nebraska was able to run a large volume of plays out of any number of different formations. It made it very difficult to defend, because it wasn't necessarily dependent on personnel packages. We could run the same play whether we had 3 WR on the field or double-tight in a 3-back power-I. Nowadays, you often have an idea of what teams are going to run based on the personnel they trot out onto the field.

Punching someone in the mouth over and over is timeless.
 
Armchair said:
I'll expand on why I ask the question. Recently had the opportunity to re-watch the 95 Huskers against the Florida Gators, and the 97 squad against Payton Manning's Tennessee Volunteers. We looked shockingly good in both games, on both sides of the ball.

Despite going out on top, it was frequently said the game of football had passed Osborne by. Had it? Have there been any major rule changes, scheme changes, or any other great seismic shift that would preclude continued success?

Are there any teams out there, that are mimicking the Huskers of this era? And if not, why?
Click to expand...

You seem to forget that in 1995 we were hearing that same thing! The runup to the Fiesta Bowl was almost unbearable...one broadcast I remember called the game this way: "it's the offense of the 90's vs the offense of the 50's." They loved the "Fun n Gun" offense which was a precurser to everything we are seeing today. A power running game with dominant lines on both sides of the ball will win every time...you could be running the single wing or anything else. Alabama is proof this still works...in a very dominant way.

Few do it today because they fear being criticized for not doing what others are doing, or what they think the athletes, or fans, want. Most athletes just want to win, some fans do also. We have gotten caughten up in much of this the past several years.
 
Last edited:
I'll take it a step further and say that I think our OLs looked dominate because of the offense we ran.

TO, Milt and DY put together such nuanced blocking schemes, and understood how to call plays into defensive fronts, that it allowed some very good athletes (but not better than what most teams had) on the OL dominate up front. For the most part, teams are fairly evenly matched, so it's all about the position their coaches put them in to be successful. Tom was (is) an absolute genius at taking advantage of what defensive fronts presented.
 
cm husker said:
Are Osborne and McBride calling the plays that were players prepared for under the tutelage of their staff?

Absolutely dominant. Those teams would be just as dominant today as they were in the 90s.

And no, if anything, the game has moved toward what Osborne ran offensively. TO ran a bunch of single back and "spread" type formations in the 90s.

However, the difference between TO's offense and say an Oregon spread is the reliance on dominant downhill running. People recall the option, but TO's "bread and butter" was the iso and other between the tackles running plays. The offense expanded out from there.

I'd say that if Stanford substituted the option for about half of their current passing plays, you'd have something resembling TO's O. However, I think TO was more imaginative than almost any other OC out there.

I'd say Malzahn's offensive philosophy is pretty similar to TO's, as is Paul Johnson's sytem (though both are out of different base formations (though TO was starting to tradition out of the I formation when he retired).
Click to expand...

Iso, Off tackle, Toss, Trap, Counter, Option, Play-action.

Touchdown.

Out of any formation, at any time, combined with variations on how it's blocked. The emphasis on QB footwork, where the head of a guard needs to be, selling/carrying out a fake.

This conversation makes me want to cry. Most football fans wanted to see more passing from their teams, but I thought Osborne's offense was the most beautiful thing I've ever seen on a gridiron.

Again, punching your opponent in the mouth over and over is timeless.
 



I'd rather see 5 passes of over 30 yards each than 15 passes of 10 yards each, just in terms of what's exciting to watch.

Long play action passes and seeing a play develop on the pitch are two of the most exciting offensive plays in football, imo.
 

Greatest Fan of All said:
You seem to forget that in 1995 we were hearing that same thing! The runup to the Fiesta Bowl was almost unbearable...one broadcast I remember called the game this way: "it's the offense of the 90's vs the offense of the 50's." They loved the "Fun n Gun" offense which was a precurser to everything we are seeing today. A power running game with dominant lines on both sides of the ball will win every time...you could be running the single wing or anything else. Alabama is proof this still works...in a very dominant way.

Few do it today becasue they fear being criticized for not doing what others are doing, or what they think the athletes want. Most athletes just want to win. We have gotten caughtenup in much of this the past several years.
Click to expand...

Oh, I remember the stuff leading up to the 1996 Fiesta Bowl. Everyone was picking against Nebraska. It's almost as though scoring 50 points a game doesn't count if you're doing it on the ground. 400 yards per game rushing somehow isn't as impressive as 300 yards passing.

Screw those people.

Also, it's not just Alabama... Auburn does it, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top