[Husker] Would you want Oregon's offense?

[Jon Johnston]

Going back to this. 

First of all, how many offenses could run a sneak on 4th and goal at the one against Ndamukong Suh, because that's basically what Auburn had with Nick Fairley. None? Good answer. 

Second - no, you can't run Tom Osborne's triple-option offense (I assume that's what you're thinking of and not his 70s stuff that was more of a passing offense) these days because the defensive linemen are that much stronger and faster, which is why you're seeing people spread all over the place, along with the disappearance of the fullback. 

Someone stated they'd rather have Auburn's offense, which is rather funny, because Auburn is still running out of spread formations most of the time, they simply had much more success running straight at a smaller defensive line, and they had Cam Newton, who can gain four yards a play just by falling forward. 

What you saw was two spread-based teams in a national title game, won by the one that had a stronger offensive and defensive line. You don't want a spread offense because it doesn't make you feel all warm and gooey inside? Seriously? 

Jon Johnston
Corn Nation

On Jan 11, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Mike Nolan wrote:

> 
> I though Oregon actually tried a bit too much trickery, and it may have
> cost them the game.  What kind of offense is it that can't run a sneak
> on 4th and goal at the 1?  
> 
> Maybe I'm just old and grouchy, but I really long for the days when everybody
> in the stadium knew what play Osborne was about to call, but he did it anyway, 
> and it succeeded.  I wonder if that would still work with the stronger and
> faster defenses they have now?  
> 
> A field goal kicker may have won the game, but the Auburn defense was the real 
> winner last night IMHO.
> --
> Mike Nolan