Ken N. has to be the guy.

Donate To GopherHole
B

balds

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
3,359
Reaction score
1,301
Points
113
Bring with him his entire offensive staff and give him the $$$ to get a dynamite Defensive Coordinator.

In case you missed it, Navy ran for over 500 yards and scored over 70 points vs. East Carolina over the weekend. They threw the ball only 8 times!!! This after they ran for nearly 400 yards against Notre Dame.

That offense is a beast to play against, both mentally and physically. Imagine playing against that offense for 60 minutes in Minnesota in November. The offense could keep our defense off the field. Recruiting against the big boys will not be easy no matter who we get. Let's de-emphasize that part of the hire and get a great coach who runs his system very well. Has worked well for Georgia Tech (in a lesser conference), and I think would work well for us.

Have Navy play the Gophers schedule this year and I would bet they go 8-4 minimum, possibly 9-3.

He has easily vaulted to the top my wish list for our new coach.
 


I guess I'm just not excited about running up the score on a small conference chump team.
 


Wow - After Our Losses To NIU, USD, etc.

Jeshurun said:
I guess I'm just not excited about running up the score on a small conference chump team.
Click to expand...

I thought posts like this would be a thing of the past. One thing I've learned in the past 4 years - I'll never, ever, take any "W" for granted again, and I will never again complain about a "bad win".

Also, take a look at some of Niumatalolo's wins . . . he's doing this at Annapolis, folks.
 




Chump?

Notre Dame? East Carolina is certainly no juggernaut, but they did come into the game 5-3 (4-1 in C-USA), having beaten North Carolina St. Like a previous poster said, they are Navy! Not Alabama or even Wisconsin or Iowa.
 

If we're looking for a crap defense paired with a novelty running game, why did we ever fire Glen Mason? We should already know from having suffered from it for 9 years that that lack of balance is just not good enough for the Big Ten, and will get us mediocrity in the best of seasons. Ken N. will never be able to recruit QBs, never be able to recruit talent on D. He will blow out lesser teams and get stuffed by WI and IA every year.
 



The above statement is the risk of running the triple option. You bring him in, all of a sudden Alipate is obsolete and useless to the team (he can't play anything other than QB, he can't play QB in the triple option).
Iowa shut down GT in the Orange Bowl. Would Georgia Tech have won the ACC with the triple option if it wasn't won of the worst years in the history of the conference?
 

I hate everything about this idea. This would be a move that screams "we can't compete"

1. You don't de-emphasize recruiting.
2. Navy is an independent meaning that few teams get a consistent look at their option offense. In the Big Ten, it would result in diminishing returns as the novelty of defending the option wears off as teams practice for it every year.
 

Didn't Nebraska win about 3 National Championships in the 90's with the triple option? I know the game changes but before unilaterally declaring a system junk look what it can accomplish when run well.

Hell, the Wildcat(or whatever you call it) is the option, many many schools have parts of the option in their play books. Purdue, Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois all come to mind right away as B10 schools that have option elements to the game plan.

Fact is the option can and does work week after week for teams all across America.
 

mnboiler said:
Didn't Nebraska win about 3 National Championships in the 90's with the triple option? I know the game changes but before unilaterally declaring a system junk look what it can accomplish when run well.

Hell, the Wildcat(or whatever you call it) is the option, many many schools have parts of the option in their play books. Purdue, Michigan, Ohio State, Illinois all come to mind right away as B10 schools that have option elements to the game plan.

Fact is the option can and does work week after week for teams all across America.
Click to expand...

Nebraska won 3 National Championships in the 90s with the triple option.
And then they abandoned it.

Fact is, that a lot of schools that once would have run triple option now choose to run some sort of spread option. Because you can still use all the option principals, but you are in a formation that is also conducive to passing effectively.
 



The old Big 8 was great. Everybody literally running downhill on those old astro-turf fields with enormous crowns. It was hard running to the wide side on the far hash because you had to run uphill!
 

Rosemountian said:
Nebraska won 3 National Championships in the 90s with the triple option.
And then they abandoned it.
Click to expand...

Nebraska never ran the triple option. Nebraska ran an option game almost exclusively out of the I-formation or Power-I formation. The Nebraska "I-Option" was based mostly on pure power and strength.

The triple option, while sharing some similar principles, is a different formation, different backfield personnel grouping, and a different concept. The triple option uses finesse and quickness, not strength and power.
 


tjgopher said:
Nebraska never ran the triple option. Nebraska ran an option game almost exclusively out of the I-formation or Power-I formation. The Nebraska "I-Option" was based mostly on pure power and strength.

The triple option, while sharing some similar principles, is a different formation, different backfield personnel grouping, and a different concept. The triple option uses finesse and quickness, not strength and power.
Click to expand...


I think they did run the triple option at times:

http://incolor.inebraska.com/mays/diveoption.htm

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/32097-nebraska-football-remembering-tommie-frazier


http://www.thetigernews.com/news.php?aid=1594&sid=3
 

I know this is putting the cart way before the horse... but imagine next year's offense running a triple-option system.

You've got Gray behind center with Kirkwood/Edwards running the ball.
You've got McKnight as a deep threat.

Unfortunately, we'd still have no defense--- which could be problematic if we become the type of offense that needs 5:00 worth of clock to move up and down the field toward the endzone.
 

Iowasucks said:
I think they did run the triple option at times:

http://incolor.inebraska.com/mays/diveoption.htm

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/32097-nebraska-football-remembering-tommie-frazier


http://www.thetigernews.com/news.php?aid=1594&sid=3
Click to expand...

Yes, Nebraska ran an option offense, but it was not the "triple option." They may have sprinkled in some plays with a triple option look, but Tom Osborne made his name on the I-formation or Power-I based option, which is different than the triple option.

I didn't mean to hijack this thread. It was a small nit to pick, nothing major. But, Navy's brand of the option differs from the brand we saw Tommy Frazier and Eric Crouch run at Nebraska. Obviously, many of the concepts are the same.
 

positively4thstreet said:
It sure beats losing to small conference chump teams.
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. How silly of me. Now that we have a losing season, we should go back to being content with mediocrity and hire someone who will get us an 8-5 record on a yearly basis. Never above and seldom below.
 

Jeshurun said:
Yes, you're right. How silly of me. Now that we have a losing season, we should go back to being content with mediocrity and hire someone who will get us an 8-5 record on a yearly basis. Never above and seldom below.
Click to expand...

I think the goal should be to get to mediocrity, then work from there. Ever since Mason got the boot and we started playing at the Bank, mediocrity will never be the endgame.
 

Jeshurun said:
Yes, you're right. How silly of me. Now that we have a losing season, we should go back to being content with mediocrity and hire someone who will get us an 8-5 record on a yearly basis. Never above and seldom below.
Click to expand...

No, you're right: we should demand ten wins from our new coach next year, because that's rational.
 

Studwell55 said:
The old Big 8 was great. Everybody literally running downhill on those old astro-turf fields with enormous crowns. It was hard running to the wide side on the far hash because you had to run uphill!
Click to expand...

Those early-1970s games between Nebraska and Oklahoma were flat-out awesome. Jack Mildren and Greg Pruitt for the Sooners and Jerry Tagge, Jeff Kinney, and Johnny Rodgers for the Huskers.

I still remember Rodgers' phenomenal punt return in the 35-31 Nebraska win. One of the greatest pieces of open field running I have ever seen.
 

SickAndTiredOfLosingToWI said:
If we're looking for a crap defense paired with a novelty running game, why did we ever fire Glen Mason? We should already know from having suffered from it for 9 years that that lack of balance is just not good enough for the Big Ten, and will get us mediocrity in the best of seasons. Ken N. will never be able to recruit QBs, never be able to recruit talent on D. He will blow out lesser teams and get stuffed by WI and IA every year.
Click to expand...

Wrong. He wouldn't be able to recruit the top QBs, but he wouldn't want them either. The best QBs for the system would have exactly 2 BCS choices, Georgia Tech and us. Did you see WI against Cal Poly a couple of years ago?
 

ruralgopher said:
Wrong. He wouldn't be able to recruit the top QBs, but he wouldn't want them either. The best QBs for the system would have exactly 2 BCS choices, Georgia Tech and us. Did you see WI against Cal Poly a couple of years ago?
Click to expand...
That makes me feel so much better, knowing our head coach will have first pick of all the QBs that nobody else wants. How could that possibly go wrong? I agree that choosing a new head coach based on the near-win of one team whom he has never had anything to do with, over another team in our conference, sounds like a good idea. I for one look forward to 9 more years of Glen, I mean Ken, Niuwhatsits.
 

SickAndTiredOfLosingToWI said:
That makes me feel so much better, knowing our head coach will have first pick of all the QBs that nobody else wants. How could that possibly go wrong? I agree that choosing a new head coach based on the near-win of one team whom he has never had anything to do with, over another team in our conference, sounds like a good idea. I for one look forward to 9 more years of Glen, I mean Ken, Niuwhatsits.
Click to expand...

I just used that game to illustrate the point that it is a tough O to stop because you don't get to prep for it for 1/2 the teams you play, but surely you are smart enough to understand what I was getting at. As for the QB, you wouldn't put Tolzien in an option attack any sooner than you would put Denard Robinson in a pro style offense, the goal is to get the best players for your system.
 

ruralgopher said:
Wrong. He wouldn't be able to recruit the top QBs, but he wouldn't want them either. The best QBs for the system would have exactly 2 BCS choices, Georgia Tech and us. Did you see WI against Cal Poly a couple of years ago?
Click to expand...

the best qb's for the triple option are runningbacks! there is nothing about the triple option that excites me! its boring, it doesn't win big consistently, and if we get behind good luck coming back! NO THANKS!
 

Lots of craziness going around. People are spinning away Georgia Tech winning their conference with the Triple Option. The triple option is in no way, shape or form a "gimmick" or "novelty" offense. It's just old school football. One of the huge advantages of the triple option is that we would have our pick of players with a different set of abilities than other schools. This is not picking from other schools' rejects, these are good athletes who don't fit into other schools' systems. And the triple option doesn't imply having a bad defense.
 

RodentRampage said:
The triple option is in no way, shape or form a "gimmick" or "novelty" offense. It's just old school football.
Click to expand...

Can't the same thing be said of Gus Malzahn's offense at Auburn. I've read it's just the old single wing supped up.
 

tjgopher said:
Nebraska never ran the triple option. Nebraska ran an option game almost exclusively out of the I-formation or Power-I formation. The Nebraska "I-Option" was based mostly on pure power and strength.

The triple option, while sharing some similar principles, is a different formation, different backfield personnel grouping, and a different concept. The triple option uses finesse and quickness, not strength and power.
Click to expand...

tjgopher said:
Yes, Nebraska ran an option offense, but it was not the "triple option." They may have sprinkled in some plays with a triple option look, but Tom Osborne made his name on the I-formation or Power-I based option, which is different than the triple option.

I didn't mean to hijack this thread. It was a small nit to pick, nothing major. But, Navy's brand of the option differs from the brand we saw Tommy Frazier and Eric Crouch run at Nebraska. Obviously, many of the concepts are the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry TJ, but you are dead wrong here. Nebraska ran plenty of triple option in 90's.

The triple option can be run out of several formations, including the I or the Power I. It obviously can be run out of the wishbone or the flexbone (which Navy, Air Force and GT often use). Heck it can be run out of the spread with split backs.

The triple option is named because the QB has 3 options of where to go with the football. He can give to the fullback (or one of the split backs out of the spread) on a dive, he can keep, or he can pitch to the I-back or halfback depending on the formation.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom