Player your most excited about next season?
- Thread starter Cam82huskers
- Start date
Whoever wins the QB job. They will be getting the keys to a Ferrari. Also will anyone emerge as a legit pass rusher?
Last edited:
Caleb Lightborn. I’ll be excited as hell If he’s bored as hell in a lot of games.
It is going to be fun to see all the different ways they use JD. He is talented.
Last edited:
Will Honas, our linebacker play has been atrocious since Lavonte David left.
The freaking offensive line. Nothing works, not even Frost's offense, if they aren't.
He played a lot of RB in HS if I'm not mistaking so he can be used in many different ways..
Any player that chooses to sell out for their teammates/coaches for the opportunity to wear the N on the helmet in front of Husker Nation every Saturday.
I don't know. I heard there's a chance that his playing days are done.
Nobody has mentioned Stanley Morgan? He may have a record setting year.
I'd assume the same and even if he did play then how durable is he? It's hard to have a breakout season with bad knees..
That's why I wondered if there's been any news about his recovery. If Bryant decides to hand up the cleats, good for him. But if he's back in uniform next season, that's the guy I'm most excited to see play. That is, if the offensive line decides to block someone.
I'm most excited about Adrian Martinez because he is a true dual threat QB. If he gets beat out then that means we are in really GREAT shape.
I'm most excited about having an offensive identity. Once you get an offense like that established it's hard to stop. Under Callahan we ran a system that was never going to work here on a consistent basis due to it's requirements. Under Pelini we were "multiple" which means jack of all trades, master of none. Our offensive direction under that staff was a joke at best. Under Riley we were back to some sort of wanna be WCO crap that again wasn't going to work here. Frost is bringing in a proven offensive system that can and will work at the college level and doesn't require the greatest of greats to be one of the most successful.
I agree with the structure of this O being difficult to defend if run efficiently.
What I don't agree with is that all of the other O's were never going to work here. Callahan's O wasn't inept, his D was. Same could be argued for Riley although he was yet to get the running game going.
My point is you have to have the athletes to make ANY O go. To suggest we can get by with lesser quality at any position is shortchanging the opponent and Nebraska. I heard over and over about the number of WR's we needed and now look at how many we are getting - even more.
Can it be "successful" with less than the great athletes? Probably. Will be championship quality without the quality athletes? No. The athletes may look differently with this O but they will definitely have to be superior in the long run if you want to complete for championships.
We were never going to recruit good enough to sustain a potent WCO at the college level, very few can which is why the offense isn't popular at the college level. That doesn't mean we would never have an effective offense, just that we were never going to be consistent with it. I'm a fan of blowing the doors off of teams to get your back ups in for some valuable game time, wasn't going to be a common theme with an NFL approach to the game.
Every college team has needs and with the more complex pro style systems such as the WCO you amplify them. There really is no dumbing down that offense to match the college level, you basically take away it's effectiveness by doing so.
I'm sorry but that system just isn't a favorable college football offense which is why you wont find many examples of it's success.
Last edited:
You were comparing the last three O's we have had including the WCO and they were not effective. The O under BP was actually good. Riley ran more of a Pro set this year, spread with TA.
Any "system" requires the right people to run it. That is why the same teams are not always at the top because they don't always have the right people. So how many spread teams are out there? They take consistently good athletes, especially at the QB position and not all of them are successful.
I get your point and it is valid to a point. When you are talking middle of the road teams verses championship teams, that is where things change. When Oregon was playing for the NC, who did they have for players? Quality all around.
Since this O has not been at Nebraska even a full season, not sure how it can be compared to a WCO for consistency here. I just believe it takes great athletes to make anything go, call it what you want. I have seen the argument that we need to spend our scholies on skilled positions and develop walk on's for the line. In the end, it really doesn't matter, you have to have the right Joes to make it work.
Any "system" requires the right people to run it. That is why the same teams are not always at the top because they don't always have the right people. So how many spread teams are out there? They take consistently good athletes, especially at the QB position and not all of them are successful.
I get your point and it is valid to a point. When you are talking middle of the road teams verses championship teams, that is where things change. When Oregon was playing for the NC, who did they have for players? Quality all around.
Since this O has not been at Nebraska even a full season, not sure how it can be compared to a WCO for consistency here. I just believe it takes great athletes to make anything go, call it what you want. I have seen the argument that we need to spend our scholies on skilled positions and develop walk on's for the line. In the end, it really doesn't matter, you have to have the right Joes to make it work.
They weren't effective. We were always going to struggle with that offense and likely to never see a truly great WCO offense at Nebraska. Pelini offenses also weren't what I would call good offenses, he had some players that made things happen but the system wasn't exactly something tough to defend. It had no true identity. As far as Riley, his spread was just some filler offense with no real goal other than to get to the next QB so his system can be implemented.
The difference is that some offensive systems are more favorable to the college game while others are too complex for it. There is a reason that the WCO has never seen any sort of wild success in college football even with it's success in the pros.
The system they ran at Oregon favored them with the players they could get. If they were running the WCO with the same players they were likely to fail. Auburn in 2004 had a very effective WCO system but they still couldn't recruit to sustain it. It is recommended that you tame this offense at the college level to be successful but then you end up with a poor mans version of an offense.
I think it's fair to say that the spread option offense has been wildly successful in college football while the WCO has never truly enjoyed the same success. Obviously now our coach is an offensive minded coach who favors the more successful college system. I agree that great athletes are needed to make anything go but we will have a much easier road using a favorable and proven college system to sustain offensive success without the same requirements that the WCO demands. BTW, I'd much rather have my talent on the lines rather than skill positions, great lines make mediocre skill players look good.
UCF has average classes in the 60s and 70s. With mostly 3 star guys and under. They dominated a much more talented Auburn team. Yes I know one can argue how much did Auburn care. Still I think If Frost can create the culture here like he did at UCF we don't need top 10 recruiting classes to compete for the BIG10 or National Titles. We just need to consistently get top 25 classes with players who would run through brick walls to win. I would take top 5 mentality kids over top 5 recruiting any day.
Tre may be good for 10 touches a game. He just may not have the knees to be a 25-30 guy anymore.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
More responsible for the success of Seinfeld - Jerry or Larry David?- Latest: stevehammer
-
-
-
-
