Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[Dansker]

Hopefully Langsdorf has realized that a couple of stuffed running plays does not mean the running game has stopped working. It still serves a huge purpose. Shortens the game when your own D might be suspect, wears the opposing DL down, forces the opposing D to commit more players to the box, and opens up the passing game.

I agree. It was especially concerning to me when he called a pass play in the waning moments of the game and killed the clock after a negative run play. That could have backfired on us but it didn't so not a lot of people are talking about it. I'd like to believe Langsdorf has learned from this season not to take play calling for granted and is able to manage a game better.

 

[WhatDoIKnow]

Hopefully Langsdorf has realized that a couple of stuffed running plays does not mean the running game has stopped working. It still serves a huge purpose. Shortens the game when your own D might be suspect, wears the opposing DL down, forces the opposing D to commit more players to the box, and opens up the passing game.

I agree. It was especially concerning to me when he called a pass play in the waning moments of the game and killed the clock after a negative run play. That could have backfired on us but it didn't so not a lot of people are talking about it. I'd like to believe Langsdorf has learned from this season not to take play calling for granted and is able to manage a game better.

Agree. The 3rd and 1 pass play on the drive that resulted in the field goal had me upset. We were bulldozing them and could have had 1st and goal from the 2 while taking another minute plus off the clock.

 

[hskrpwr13]

Glad others saw what I saw. Thought I might get drilled for nitpicking.

It was certainly peculiar that once we'd get inside the 10 with the run, DL decided to start throwing it.

 

[Mierin]

Our OC goes away from the running game WAY too easily. That's the main issue I have. His idea of trying the run game is to stop trying if they stuff it 2 times.

 

[Elf]

Riley:

"When you look at the (Big Ten), and look at the teams winning it, they're running the ball a lot," he said. "Certainly, we know from just history, you can have a really good passing game. But it always goes better when you run the ball. A lot of that play-action stuff means a little bit more ...


"That should be our game. We have to get to be a better running team."

Langsdorf:

"I think if we could run like that every game, we'd run the ball every time, but we couldn't. I think that shows when you hit 6-, 7-yarders early in the game, you've got them off balance with some things, it's a lot easier to say heavier running."

Link 1, Link 2

Its been a hot topic all year long. We've won games where our running game has done well and when we air it out 40+ times, we lose. I'm wondering when Danny will figure it out that the team that runs the ball better usually wins. I'd grade Langsdorf with a B- for the year. I think he needs to take a second look at himself and realize this isn't Oregon State or the NFL. Perhaps a re-evaluation would do him some good. I can also point out that Riley has previously taken play calling duties away from Langsdorf during their stints at OSU. Maybe they're not on the same page or maybe what Riley is saying is PC stuff. In all honesty, I hope this team puts more emphasis on the run game AND compliment it with a passing attack! We will not win the Big Ten championship if we're a pass heavy team.

On the bolded part I think you're wrong. I think we can win as a pass heavy team or as a run heavy team or as a balanced team. We just need the right Jimmy's and Joe's to run the chosen offense.

What I do know is this, during the late 80's/very early 90's Osborne did not have a credible passing threat. Either we had QB's like Mike Grant that consistently threw the ball at the receivers feet, or our receivers were dropping way to many balls. The result was that teams stacked the box and better teams like Florida St. shut down our run game. We lost that bowl game, quite badly as I recall.

Offenses I like the best are ones where the defense never knows whats coming, pass or run, counter or misdirection, screen or quick slant. (disclaimer: this doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching other offenses.) I'm a little more rigid in my defensive thinking. I strongly prefer an attacking style of defense and I really liked Charlie McBride's philosophy of stopping the run first and then going after the quarterback. The best example of that working that I can think of is Nebraska vs Steve Spurrier's Florida Gators. I'd say I almost felt sorry for Danny Weurfel, but I'd be lying if I did and I try real hard to not be a liar.

*Edit* Amended "late 80's" to "late 80's/very early 90's"

 

[skersfan]

A good OC keeps them off balance.

If I remember correctly, there was discussion of taking the option of Tommy passing on certain plays away from him. He had the choice to run wild in the past, is what I got out of it. Last night he seemed to be under control, but made some pass plays that most likely were to be run plays. Not knocking him for it. He played the best I have ever seen him play last night. He gained confidence in himself and what the staff is teaching him. That is improvement. Last night goes a long way towards making next season better. I am sure the halls at the athletic center are a lot happier than they were after the Iowa game.

If you are honest with yourself, you saw an improvement last night. What more can you ask for?

 

[caveman99]

Hopefully Langsdorf has realized that a couple of stuffed running plays does not mean the running game has stopped working. It still serves a huge purpose. Shortens the game when your own D might be suspect, wears the opposing DL down, forces the opposing D to commit more players to the box, and opens up the passing game.

I agree. It was especially concerning to me when he called a pass play in the waning moments of the game and killed the clock after a negative run play. That could have backfired on us but it didn't so not a lot of people are talking about it. I'd like to believe Langsdorf has learned from this season not to take play calling for granted and is able to manage a game better.

Agree. The 3rd and 1 pass play on the drive that resulted in the field goal had me upset. We were bulldozing them and could have had 1st and goal from the 2 while taking another minute plus off the clock.

The 3rd and 1 inside the 5 was the first WTH moment for me on Langs last night. His play calling got more and more erratic from that point on as well. The drive with just 4 mins left and a chance to run the clock out was frustrating for me as he went to pass plays on 2nd and 3rd. I get that UCLA had 9 in the box at that point and stuffed the run on 1st, but every time TA ran ZR and kept it, he was killing their 8-9 man boxes because they were all crashing on the inside handoff. Why not run ZR action QB keep instead and keep the clock moving? It was like he forgot about the QB run game from the 7 min mark on until the very last drive where TA made the 20 yard run to ice it.

 

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

We are like oh yeah look at how good the run game works against an EZ team to run on. Low hanging fruit..

 

[Elf]

Glad others saw what I saw. Thought I might get drilled for nitpicking.

It was certainly peculiar that once we'd get inside the 10 with the run, DL decided to start throwing it.

The run was working so well, I wondered why pass plays were called in short yardage situations. Or like you pointed out, inside the 10.

 

[Mierin]

We are like oh yeah look at how good the run game works against an EZ team to run on. Low hanging fruit..

You and way too many others are failing to see the point. We played other bad teams and the playcalling wasn't like this. See Purdue.

 

[Elf]

We are like oh yeah look at how good the run game works against an EZ team to run on. Low hanging fruit..

UCLA has been susceptible to the run all year. Their defensive line is undersized and they got manhandled by Nebraska last night.

I think I would agree that it was low hanging fruit, but we've seen low hanging fruit already this season and failed to pick it. Last night we picked it, that's an improvement.

 

[Elf]

Hopefully Langsdorf has realized that a couple of stuffed running plays does not mean the running game has stopped working. It still serves a huge purpose. Shortens the game when your own D might be suspect, wears the opposing DL down, forces the opposing D to commit more players to the box, and opens up the passing game.

I agree. It was especially concerning to me when he called a pass play in the waning moments of the game and killed the clock after a negative run play. That could have backfired on us but it didn't so not a lot of people are talking about it. I'd like to believe Langsdorf has learned from this season not to take play calling for granted and is able to manage a game better.

Agree. The 3rd and 1 pass play on the drive that resulted in the field goal had me upset. We were bulldozing them and could have had 1st and goal from the 2 while taking another minute plus off the clock.

The 3rd and 1 inside the 5 was the first WTH moment for me on Langs last night. His play calling got more and more erratic from that point on as well. The drive with just 4 mins left and a chance to run the clock out was frustrating for me as he went to pass plays on 2nd and 3rd. I get that UCLA had 9 in the box at that point and stuffed the run on 1st, but every time TA ran ZR and kept it, he was killing their 8-9 man boxes because they were all crashing on the inside handoff. Why not run ZR action QB keep instead and keep the clock moving? It was like he forgot about the QB run game from the 7 min mark on until the very last drive where TA made the 20 yard run to ice it.

I'd hesitate to run against 9 in the box. In fact, I'd probably start drooling over all the ways I could make them pay for that with the forward pass.

 

[caveman99]

Hopefully Langsdorf has realized that a couple of stuffed running plays does not mean the running game has stopped working. It still serves a huge purpose. Shortens the game when your own D might be suspect, wears the opposing DL down, forces the opposing D to commit more players to the box, and opens up the passing game.

I agree. It was especially concerning to me when he called a pass play in the waning moments of the game and killed the clock after a negative run play. That could have backfired on us but it didn't so not a lot of people are talking about it. I'd like to believe Langsdorf has learned from this season not to take play calling for granted and is able to manage a game better.

Agree. The 3rd and 1 pass play on the drive that resulted in the field goal had me upset. We were bulldozing them and could have had 1st and goal from the 2 while taking another minute plus off the clock.

The 3rd and 1 inside the 5 was the first WTH moment for me on Langs last night. His play calling got more and more erratic from that point on as well. The drive with just 4 mins left and a chance to run the clock out was frustrating for me as he went to pass plays on 2nd and 3rd. I get that UCLA had 9 in the box at that point and stuffed the run on 1st, but every time TA ran ZR and kept it, he was killing their 8-9 man boxes because they were all crashing on the inside handoff. Why not run ZR action QB keep instead and keep the clock moving? It was like he forgot about the QB run game from the 7 min mark on until the very last drive where TA made the 20 yard run to ice it.

I'd hesitate to run against 9 in the box. In fact, I'd probably start drooling over all the ways I could make them pay for that with the forward pass.

Normally I would agree, but I would argue that time and situation should override temptation at this point. You have an 8 point lead and the ball with just 4 mins on the clock. If you run the ball 3 times and not make the 1st down you take a minimum of 2 1/2 mins off of the play clock. By throwing twice they left over 3 1/2 mins to UCLA instead of only 1 1/2 mins. Also Langs seemed to forget how well the QB run off of ZR was doing against UCLA's 8-9 man boxes. He finally called it again on the last drive and TA got a 20 yd run off it again. Should have called this play the previous drive.
This pattern from Langs has been frustrating all season and I would argue played a large part in several close losses.

 

[Elf]

We out gained UCLA 196 yards to 1 in the 3rd quarter alone. We did this by controlling time of possession and running the football. The real concern is if a pass heavy NFL/QB type of coach like Langsdorf is willing to lean towards a run game that beasts its way to a W like we saw last night. I'd like to see our offense evolve more into a Stanford like offense. Our odds of getting those 11 win seasons and B1G championships will increase with a good running game.

I think we would see more success through the air if we used the run to setup the pass but more often than not, we saw some shady play calling from Langsdorf such as the red zone play where we threw it on 3rd and 1 that resulted in a FG and previously where we threw a fade route before punching it in (WTH?) we were dominating the LOS all night long.

I think we need much better offensive line play in the future if you consistently want a good running game. We were successful last night in large part due to size differences between our oline and their dline. Even my wife noticed how small those guys looked compared to ours, and that's saying something.

 

[Hujan]

People will point out that UCLA is weak against the run and that's true, but we shouldn't just wait to run against the weak teams. That is a defeatist mentality. We should impose our will on our opponents, not the other way around.

Stanford piled up 311 rush yards against UCLA, but they also piled up a lot of rushing yards against other teams. We may not have put up 300 rushing yards against everyone we played, but committing to the run* would have been a sounder offensive strategy than asking your athlete QB to sling the ball 40 times a game in foul weather.

Anyone who doubts that Langsdorf is, at bottom, scared to run and defaults to throwing should no longer dare open their mouths after watching Langsdorf throwing the ball on short "goal to go" situations on not one but TWO drives late in the game, until even he knew that he would be shot if he didn't run it. And guess what, we punched the ball in for the game-sealing TD.

*"Committing to the run" means more than just the run-pass ratio. That is a factor, but so too is putting your best foot forward by entrusting the ball to your best running back (i.e., not Newby), bringing in some heavies to block, and dialing up some creative plays.