Yep, another dumb prediction.
-
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 .
Lessons from the 90s when we remember ALL of the 90s
- Thread starter Middle-aged_Ball_Coach
- Start date
Yep, another dumb prediction.
I was just thinking about having Randy Gregory on this defense. We would have a pass rush at all times even with a new coaching staff and new scheme. RG was quick, agile, fast and strong. He was virtually unblockable. Like Mo Washington, he did not need much coaching or S&C to be effective.
With RG, many of those 3rd and longs we've been unable to stop this season would have been stopped. Some some of our opponents scoring drives would have ended with zero points with RG (or Shaquem Griffin ) on board. One guy like that is probably worth 7 to 14 pints per game.
Yes, lack of continuity can be cited as a reason for our struggles, but I'd say a lack of difference-making talent is the main culprit.
With RG, many of those 3rd and longs we've been unable to stop this season would have been stopped. Some some of our opponents scoring drives would have ended with zero points with RG (or Shaquem Griffin ) on board. One guy like that is probably worth 7 to 14 pints per game.
Yes, lack of continuity can be cited as a reason for our struggles, but I'd say a lack of difference-making talent is the main culprit.
Last edited:
Points I believe you are trying to make in the OP (correct me if I'm wrong), bolded is my disagreement:
1. Nebraska's ball control offense in the 90s had significant weaknesses, including needing a defense that could sustain a lead and the inability of the offense to come from behind and win. Whereas, in an uptempo offense it is much easier to come from behind and win.
All of your points are valid, but I believe that overall you are missing the forest for the trees. Nebraska's offense of the 90s wasn't good necessarily because of ball control (although that had a role to play), but mainly because of the fact that our scheme, since so few teams ran it, gave us significant recruiting advantages, in a state that is hard to recruit to. It also gave us an advantage because at the time we had a strength and conditioning program par excellence. We could take our scheme players (for example a 2 or 3 star WR that wasn't necessarily super tall with flypaper hands, instead maybe just a good run blocker) and develop him with our great S&C program. Also, the uptempo offense (once defenses have learned to adapt (so that you can't just line up a basic run play without the defense being set) are becoming more focused on throttling back their speeds to control the clock (https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...lution-over-it-certainly-slowed-down-in-2017/). Finally, I just don't know how we are ever going to out-recruit the skill players from the likes of Ohio State, Florida, or California schools that are running the same scheme (uptempo spread)?
2. Wisconsin is like the 90s Huskers without the dominant defense, because they haven't got the athletes yet to strike fear in the hearts of other teams. They also could use a mobile QB.
I think your analysis is very spot on in this section, which leads me to question your conclusions. Basically you spend this whole section explaining how all Wisconsin needs is to develop a good defense and a mobile QB and then they will be like Nebraska in their heyday. Wouldn't that mean that you should be advocating for an offensive scheme like Wisconsin's at Nebraska? Instead of an up-tempo spread? I would much rather be two steps away from competing for National Championships, than a mess like we are right now.
3. Chinander should be given more time, he needs better athletes that understand their assignments for the defense to work.
I agree with everything from this section for the most part. Chinander deserves time both to teach the players and to recruit the type of player he needs to consistently win in the Big 10.
Thanks for the OP it was a very good discussion starter.
1. Nebraska's ball control offense in the 90s had significant weaknesses, including needing a defense that could sustain a lead and the inability of the offense to come from behind and win. Whereas, in an uptempo offense it is much easier to come from behind and win.
All of your points are valid, but I believe that overall you are missing the forest for the trees. Nebraska's offense of the 90s wasn't good necessarily because of ball control (although that had a role to play), but mainly because of the fact that our scheme, since so few teams ran it, gave us significant recruiting advantages, in a state that is hard to recruit to. It also gave us an advantage because at the time we had a strength and conditioning program par excellence. We could take our scheme players (for example a 2 or 3 star WR that wasn't necessarily super tall with flypaper hands, instead maybe just a good run blocker) and develop him with our great S&C program. Also, the uptempo offense (once defenses have learned to adapt (so that you can't just line up a basic run play without the defense being set) are becoming more focused on throttling back their speeds to control the clock (https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...lution-over-it-certainly-slowed-down-in-2017/). Finally, I just don't know how we are ever going to out-recruit the skill players from the likes of Ohio State, Florida, or California schools that are running the same scheme (uptempo spread)?
2. Wisconsin is like the 90s Huskers without the dominant defense, because they haven't got the athletes yet to strike fear in the hearts of other teams. They also could use a mobile QB.
I think your analysis is very spot on in this section, which leads me to question your conclusions. Basically you spend this whole section explaining how all Wisconsin needs is to develop a good defense and a mobile QB and then they will be like Nebraska in their heyday. Wouldn't that mean that you should be advocating for an offensive scheme like Wisconsin's at Nebraska? Instead of an up-tempo spread? I would much rather be two steps away from competing for National Championships, than a mess like we are right now.
3. Chinander should be given more time, he needs better athletes that understand their assignments for the defense to work.
I agree with everything from this section for the most part. Chinander deserves time both to teach the players and to recruit the type of player he needs to consistently win in the Big 10.
Thanks for the OP it was a very good discussion starter.
Thank goodness we didn't have social media back then!
It was as though it seemed like we needed two sets of players....brawlers, to win the conference, and gazelles, to win the bowl game. Hard to find them both in the same set of players.
the guy from hastings that sat beside my dad at home games in the 70's and 80's would usually leave by halftime, because he was so pissed at osborne.
#hubris
I had a family friend who wanted Osborne fired immediately when NU lost to Missouri in 1973. He reached nearly maniacal levels after the loss to Washington State in 1977. Bitched for a decade after the failed two point conversion against Miami in the Orange Bowl after the '83 season, downgraded the '94 and '97 championship teams because they played inferior competition, even in their bowls. My favorite was that Osborne deserved no credit for the '95 team because it was a 'perfect collection of football players any idiot could win it all with'.
You just can't please some folks.
Was his name Steve Pederson? Becuz voids surrounded by a sphincter like that are the ones that have RUINED NUFB.
Pogo
Non nobis solum nati sumus
The thing about defense is what has me irked. We've scored enough in all games except Michigan to have won them.. and our yardage has been at times monstrous. And yet we watch our opponents' yardage and scores go up, and we lose.
Scott Frost (and the media, especially the Lincoln paper) talks about the quarterback and the O-line a bit too much in my opinion, as compared to the crisis we're having on defense as compared to the 90s or any other time.
Scott Frost (and the media, especially the Lincoln paper) talks about the quarterback and the O-line a bit too much in my opinion, as compared to the crisis we're having on defense as compared to the 90s or any other time.
LOL. No. He was a walking sphincter though. Giant life support system for an anus.
I'm not sure NU needs to necessarily "out recruit" those programs for the "skill players" to compete with them. Right now the problem isn't that our receivers, RBs or QB are not good enough. It's the consistency (which will come) and the interior line play (which will hopefully come) that hold this offense back from scoring sufficient points against the better teams. I doubt NU will ever have the depth of players like Stanley and JD that an OSU will have...injuries in the wrong spot will always hurt NU worse than those programs...but on the top line or two we will be fine.
The biggest recruiting hurdle IMHO is getting the bad ass d-linemen that we never seem to get.
I think the quick, short term fix for this better punting. If our average goes from 33 yds/punt to 43 yds per punt, with 5 punts per game, that's 50 yards of hidden yardage in our favor.
Coupled with that is defense getting stops.
This plus cutting down on penalties. I know they still had 10 against Wisconsin, but they were all effort penalties vs. stupid personal foul/late hit stuff. This team is never going to be a team that only has 3 penalties a game, but they need to get it down to something like 6.
Doing the little things better punting, less penalties, better 3rd down percentages on both sides of the ball. All these things lead to victory.
I will be the first person to admit I don't know jack about X's and O's so take this worth a grain of salt, but I thought the goal of the spread offense was mainly to spread the defense out, taking out extra blockers (like a FB) and put in extra receivers, the goal being to make the defense spread out for more man-to-man matchups or find holes in the zone.
"As far as personnel, you need a deep stable of pass catchers, as unless all the receivers are threats, the defense will have no need to spread out and defend them. You also need a quarterback with a good arm, and a running back who is adept at reading his blocks." (https://www.football-tutorials.com/spread-offense-101/).
Just my two cents. I think in a spread offense you lean more on your skill players, and in a power running game you lean more on your line and blockers. I'm probably out of my depth here though.
Last edited:
Kind of think we’re in a similar boat now. What’s the best way to survive the meat grinder that is the B1G conference schedule, and prepare for whoever you’ll face in the postseason?
