Run the damn ball guy porn.. You can't tell me a more balanced variation of Osborne's offense couldn't work in today's game. It wasn't beautiful through the 80's and 90's. Power, counter, option, zone,trap, RPO and play action.
TO's offense = Identity
- Thread starter Redblood23_rivals
- Start date
Run the damn ball guy porn.. You can't tell me a more balanced variation of Osborne's offense couldn't work in today's game. It wasn't beautiful through the 80's and 90's. Power, counter, option, zone,trap, RPO and play action.
Those were the days my friend
We'd thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
Those were the days, yes those were the days.
We'd thought they'd never end
We'd sing and dance forever and a day
We'd live the life we choose
We'd fight and never lose
Those were the days, yes those were the days.
Randomly but not part of an identity.
I am curious what everyone thinks Holgerson's Offensive identity is?
I for one think it's ,on any give Saturday , 25 plays from the play book. These plays are scientifically selected randomly foma draw out of a hat. Then at half time , same plays , after another draw. .
'
I for one think it's ,on any give Saturday , 25 plays from the play book. These plays are scientifically selected randomly foma draw out of a hat. Then at half time , same plays , after another draw. .
'
I have said this dozens of times, the key to the entire success was the coaching and Tom primarily. Everyone can look at his playbook, it isn't top secret. But Tom recruited the right players, often players others had never heard of but developed them. As a play caller, there was never anyone better. Just my opinion, but Devaney was in trouble when he promoted Tom and the rest is history. It simply could not be duplicated.
Unlike most coaches who I feel did have an identity I'm not sure what Holgersons is. I'm the past it was the mesh play but I haven't seen that much with him
That's what it seems like at times. I'm almost completely out on him but I'll give him one more chance with the new quarterback to see what he does.
I’m praying the revamped Oline and coach add will allow DH to show his stuff. It’s a long shot but it’s all I have.
We saw first hand what TO's offense looked like without TO running it or overseeing player recruitment/development. It centered around Jammal Lord improvising and running for his life behind a declining offensive line. If anyone could have duplicated what TO did, it should have been the guy who succeeded him who probably knew the offense as well as anyone, yet he couldn't.
My brother-in-law was involved professionally with the program when Frank took over. Tom would call down plays from his box. Frank couldn’t run them because they were either not in the playbook anymore or they hadn’t practiced them. Famously the pass that beat Mizzou in the quagmire game was a suggestion sent to Pelini’s staff by Tom.
TO was a passing coach until he recruited Turner Gill he struggled beating Oklahoma with the passing game and quarterbacks that weren’t very mobile. It wasn’t until he switched defensive schemes in the early 1990’s that he really started to kick ***. Don’t get me wrong we were pretty successful in the 1980’s but still struggled to beat the southern schools with a lot more speed
To be fair, faking a handoff with Raiola as your QB is a waste of time. Defenses did not respect it.
The other thing to remember about TO is that he always strived to get better as a head coach, all the way through the 60-3 run on which he closed out his career. While he was fairly successful in the 70s and 80s, few people would have ever seen him being part of future GOAT conversations.
You don't see that kind of lifelong drive in many head coaches anymore. A few, but not many.
TO's remarkable ability to develop players was greatly assisted by our cutting edge strength and PED programs. And of course Prop 48 and the "County Scholarships." 
Those were the days!
Those were the days!
Are you the dude that started the iowa #8Wins thing?TO's remarkable ability to develop players was greatly assisted by our cutting edge strength and PED programs. And of course Prop 48 and the "County Scholarships."
And you still never answered, do you, as an iowa fan, demand more than 8 wins?
I like to tell people that I attended NU on the extremely rare Reverse County Scholarship.TO's remarkable ability to develop players was greatly assisted by our cutting edge strength and PED programs. And of course Prop 48 and the "County Scholarships."
People in the area chipped in a few bucks toward my tuition if I agreed not to try out for the football team.
Huskers have not had an identity for years. Sometimes try to pass, sometimes try to run, sometimes no clue. Granted you have to have the correct players for each and that has been the problem. Poor QB play, WR lacking speed, RB's always fumbling or lacking in speed. Special teams often horrible in years past. Some years a decent Defense and some years not. Under TO one could always count on big strong intelligent OL along with a tough defense and very good running backs. Yes times have changed and now its all about how much money the players want. Losing interest at this point.
Been screaming for an IDENTITY for decades. We don't have one, just following along with the masses.
Now if we were to go all-in on a unique identity (e.g. Oz-bone), I'd at least be interested in watching again on Saturdays.
Now if we were to go all-in on a unique identity (e.g. Oz-bone), I'd at least be interested in watching again on Saturdays.
My thinking is that the offense Holgerson would like to feature has a better chance of being efficient and successful with Colandrea at QB as opposed to Raiola. Holgerson said Raiola was the most talented QB he's coached. What he didn't say was that Raiola's skills were not well suited to what he wants to do and a QB that had at least some instincts as to when to run would be more suitable.
Agreed. Osborne figured out the offensive identity incorporating a duel threat QB much quicker than he figured it out on the defensive side. His defenses worked great through the 80s against run focused Big 8 schools, just not against the Miami's and Florida States with all that WR speed and talent. Even Switzer's Sooner defenses had trouble matching up with Miami's offense in the 80s.
Last edited:
Both Humm and Ferragamo played in the NFL. Vince played in Super Bowl. TO thought he needed better ball control for the OU game, and a system that was able to compete with the wishbone. And the thing was of course decisive was that once the system was in it could tweaked and improved each season, and athletes recruited to run it optimally. This went on for years and finished with one of the best run of games in CFB history. Under Solich, the offense degraded to the QB being more relied upon to generate offense and that was awesome as long as Crouch was on the roster. Then we went West Coast and that was working into Pelini's tenure. Then Beck developed a spread based thing and it was very potent. Since then, there has just been too much churn in coaches to get any consistency, although Frost featured some busted up version of an Oregon offense for a few years. Rhule's first year featured a player that would have been very comfortable running TO's offense, and the last two featured the now ended Raiola experiment.
And of course one of the leading topics of discussion is that Rhule ain't working out and we need new coaches. And we can start again from square one in developing an offensive identity.
Meh. Osborne’s identity was to create a numbers mismatch then use it. He would key in on specific defenders and abuse them. When he got DBs and backers crashing too hard he would pull out an option pass. IMO the term “identity” is over used and maybe not as important as some think. Frank’s offenses had an identity. It wasn’t always very good.
Tom has said many times that if he had continued coaching he would have likely evolved in to more of a spread zone option offense. I really don’t think that’s all that different than what Dana wants to do. The difference maybe is that Dana is quicker to go to the air. Just do whatever you do well.
And if you look at the old highlights, those option passes usually featured a receiver or two running wide open. Hell, Tommie arm punted it to a completion half the time.
And if you are wondering about Dana, his remarks about Colandrea could have been predicted - "He had mobility," Holgorsen said of the QB who was Mountain West Player of the Year at UNLV in 2025. "Didn't know him, didn't meet him. Hadn't really watched him. Watched some video of him. Just the mobility aspect of it. Called around and talked to some people about him and immediately brought him in."
There were stories that Dylan checked out of the called play so often that it was hard for Dana to call a consistent gameplan. We will get a better read on Dana this season, for better or for worse.
The last sentence has been our problem - what has our offense done consistently well against P5 teams in recent years? The face of the team the past 2 years was a passing QB who was at risk of getting sacked 50% of the times he dropped back, and was zero threat to run. We had our first AA running back in forever last year, but yet we couldn't seemingly convert a 3rd or 4th and short on the ground to save our lives, or our OC had no faith that we could. Lots of this points back to the OL, so hopefully the new OL coach and a more mobile QB will help Holgersen establish some defined strengths, identity, or whatever we want to call it, in the offense next year.
I will preface by saying that anything is better than what we are watchin with our current team but the triple option has been neglected by the smartest minds for a reason.. there is no reason to limit offensive space while running an offense that leads to a ton of injuries, a ton of turnovers, and leaves you unable to complete third and long or come from behind. It worked in a world where NU had a decades long advantage over teams like Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Colorado... and when T.O played OSU or OU, and certainly Florida State, Miami, Clemson he lost more often than not. The 95-97 run was very special, but in 1993 people were clamoring for change, wanted a more "modern" offense. Zone/Read is option, with more space and which takes advantage of an era where most qbs can complete a pass over 10 yards. Some of greatest running teams of the last 25 years have been pure zone read, the national champion from last year was pure zone read with a power running game.
Last edited:
Very good post.
Most fans focus on the run v. pass, good OL vs. bad OL. All are true, but overly-simplistic and light in details. Tom was not an offensive mastermind simply because he committed to a running offense and quality OL. These were important factors - but only part of the story.
What made Tom brilliant was his study of the game and the opponent. And in-game adjustments. He picked up on tendencies, nuances during the game, he noticed inefficiencies, he zeroed in on weak defenders. This is an absolute art that so many modern day coaches and coordinators don't have and don't seem to think is critical. Instead, they think they will "X and O" you to death. In other words, fancy plays, creativity and a variety of play-calling will lead them to success (and obviously sometimes that works).
Tom was rarely focused on hyping his team's emotions (like the video-recorded speeches we now see) - I am convinced it was because he was too busy studying the opponents and finding their weaknesses (along with his core belief that this strategy was more important than getting hyped for a game).
The man's skillset is severely missed. Instead we get clowns like Satterfield asked to be our OC who has a slack jaw when asked about yards per play. See what I mean? A lost skill. If he doesn't know his own team's yards per play, imagine asking him what the opponents is, or what their defensive tendencies are in 3rd and short situations. And Rhule who is too busy licking his lips and jacking at the officials to be studying the opponents play-calling and tendencies.
Sure we can miss running the ball and having dominant OL's. Those were awesome. But I miss the strategy and the adjustments. I miss knowing the exact moment to release the tight end and fake the option pitch, 2 steps back and .... see ya.
The biggest failure of Nebraska since TO has been offensive line and their development. That needs to be priority #1 for any head coach here, or anywhere else for that matter. You can have the best X's and O's and the best offensive game plan. But, with a terrible O-line you will fail every time.
I don't know if Dana returns to his prior glory, but I'd like to think he has a shot with Colandrea back there. If anything, it gives Dana a whole new element to think about and work with.. it is entirely possibly that not only does the offense take a big step with the Offensive Line, but Dana has the potential to take a big step too. He hasn't impressed me much, but he's still got a shot and his name is known for a reason. I'm extremely bullish on this year and depending on how it goes (expecting playoffs) it really could catapult the program back into the national spotlight. I think the recruiting has been good, and Nebraska continues to generate buzz and momentum. Do it on the field, then things are going to start really paying dividends.
Switzer’s comment about how brilliant Tom was was spot on. He said”he’ll beat you with his and then he could turn around and beat his own guys with yours”. Switzer recruited some of the best athletes on the planet but he wasn’t the game day coach Tom was.
We all want to run the ball but in today’s game you have to be able to find or create mismatches or numbers. We had a S&C advantage that we no longer have against even average programs. Personally I love what Dana brings to the table. I just wish he would stick with the run more. We’ll see how much of that was QB audibles last year.