Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[Elf]

So, lets go get a big beefy O-Line, and some quick speedster RB's and get this thing going!

For this offense we also need a high quality passing qb and high quality receivers. If we had all of that, this offense would be very exciting.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

So, lets go get a big beefy O-Line, and some quick speedster RB's and get this thing going!

For this offense we also need a high quality passing qb and high quality receivers. If we had all of that, this offense would be very exciting.

See, that's the problem with the pro-style offenses. In order to be great, it requires great talent across the board at every position. It can work at schools like USC or Alabama or Florida State, where it's easy to recruit to. But, spread and option offenses don't require amazing talent up and down the offensive roster.

 

[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..

Because Miami (#107 in rush defense), Illinois (#66 rush defense) and Purdue (#108 rush defense) were simply too tough to run on?

I'll take your point in the Purdue game, yeah.

The other ones, I don't think are that simple. Those stats (correct me if I am wrong) are end of season stats? Miami was the 3rd game of the season, so the game plan was probably not like the UCLA game plan. Illinois was actually pretty good against the run on paper when we played them. I think the only team up until then to break 100 yds rushing was UNC.

The other part is the (rumor) that early in the season the run game had not been fully implemented...so I could see the OC going with plays that had been more rehearsed.

Now I'm not making excuses. I stand with most fans, and think run first, and the coaches should have seen It earlir. But it's too easy to say oh see running works great, when the game plan was basically copying the way Standford beat them up.

I'm saying there is situational football, which, I think is what Langsdorf is talking about in the quote.

 

[Dansker]

So, lets go get a big beefy O-Line, and some quick speedster RB's and get this thing going!

I really hope Riley models our offense to be like Stanford or even Wisconsin when they won a pair of B1G titles with a beefed up o-line and some pretty damn good running backs.

 

[Dansker]

So, lets go get a big beefy O-Line, and some quick speedster RB's and get this thing going!

For this offense we also need a high quality passing qb and high quality receivers. If we had all of that, this offense would be very exciting.

See, that's the problem with the pro-style offenses. In order to be great, it requires great talent across the board at every position. It can work at schools like USC or Alabama or Florida State, where it's easy to recruit to. But, spread and option offenses don't require amazing talent up and down the offensive roster.

Colorado ran a pro style offense in the early 2000's under Gary Barnett and they whipped us in 2001 62-36. Wisconsin/Bielema ran a pro style power run offense when they destroyed us in the B1G 70-31. Bielema continues to use a power run pro style offense. So, I disagree with you that it can only work at schools like USC, Alabama, Florida State. Nebraska has to get better up front and become a more physical unit in that regard. Nebraska can be a physical team like Stanford, Alabama, and others if it is the mentality they acquire and work their butts off.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

So, lets go get a big beefy O-Line, and some quick speedster RB's and get this thing going!

For this offense we also need a high quality passing qb and high quality receivers. If we had all of that, this offense would be very exciting.

See, that's the problem with the pro-style offenses. In order to be great, it requires great talent across the board at every position. It can work at schools like USC or Alabama or Florida State, where it's easy to recruit to. But, spread and option offenses don't require amazing talent up and down the offensive roster.

Colorado ran a pro style offense in the early 2000's under Gary Barnett and they whipped us in 2001 62-36. Wisconsin/Bielema ran a pro style power run offense when they destroyed us in the B1G 70-31. Bielema continues to use a power run pro style offense. So, I disagree with you that it can only work at schools like USC, Alabama, Florida State. Nebraska has to get better up front and become a more physical unit in that regard. Nebraska can be a physical team like Stanford, Alabama, and others if it is the mentality they acquire and work their butts off.

I see a difference in Colorado's offense in the early 2000's and Wisconsin's/Bielema's offense with the others that I mentioned. I shouldn't have included Alabama in with USC and Florida State.

NU doesn't need to be all spread all the time, I just think it's difficult to run a pass-heavy pro-style offense like USC/Florida State/UCLA without great talent across the board. UCLA looked great at times on Saturday night, but also struggled with pass pro and didn't run the ball all that great because their o-line wasn't up to snuff.

 

[cm husker]

^

I was just getting ready to say that. UCLA's run defense has been abysmal all season long. It's easy to say we should have run more after seeing the game last night but the reality is pretty much everyone we played had a better run defense than UCLA.

Also UCLA looked more like a 6-6 team last night than an 8-4 team to me. I was really surprised at their record actually. They have Rosen, Kenny Clark and some decent skill players but beyond that they looked horrible.

Ucla, like a lot of teams including Nebraska, had good talent and relied on a couple of elite players to be the difference makers. They lost their best players at each level of their defense this year and some good OLmen and a skill player. As good as Rosen may end up being, a first year QB can't carry a team.

UCLA has also had some assistant turnover.

They also played in a relatively down P12 this year, which helped their record.

All of that aside, this was a solid and much needed win. I hope Langs learns from it or moves on to an NFL job.

Because his quotes about needing to see 6 and 7 yard gains early to feel confident in staying with a run game are seriously disturbing.

Makes me wonder if he can check his ego/"what the playbook says should work" mentality well enough to get out of his players' ways.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

You don't need a rare or super talented QB to make this offense work better. You just need a guy who can complete a slightly higher percentage of his passes and cut the interceptions in half. There are plenty of those guys, and they're no more exotic than Zac Taylor. When the running game works better -- with slightly more talented backs and a stronger offensive line -- it takes the pressure off a guy like Armstrong, who thinks he needs to win the game by himself.

We already have very talented wide receivers, as noted by pretty much every college football observer.

I loved the concentrated rushing attack against UCLA. I also loved Stanley Morgan Jr.s one handed touchdown grab, one of many exciting pass plays this season that for some reason we're not supposed to celebrate lest we repeat them.

It actually required a higher and more specialized level of across the board talent to run Tom Osborne's option attack, including a far more dominant defense than we have today, one that allowed the offense to get off to slow starts and four yard gains instead of playing catch-up. Much harder to recruit and maintain that kind of dynasty these days.

I'm all for running the ball, as is every coach, but I get tired of all this hand-wringing that passing the ball is for big city slickers and not to the taste and abilities of simple Nebraska folk.

 

[cm husker]

Amazing to me that you still think those of us who like a run heavy offense are seen as hating the passing game.

There's almost no more exciting play in football then seeing a wr in single coverage on a play action pass.

And we need a dominant d to run the option? Huh??

The funny thing is that people still see the option game as "3 yards and a cloud of dust."

Your last paragraph is a total straw man and reeks of self-loathing.

 

[Branno]

You don't need a rare or super talented QB to make this offense work better. You just need a guy who can complete a slightly higher percentage of his passes and cut the interceptions in half. There are plenty of those guys, and they're no more exotic than Zac Taylor. When the running game works better -- with slightly more talented backs and a stronger offensive line -- it takes the pressure off a guy like Armstrong, who thinks he needs to win the game by himself.

We already have very talented wide receivers, as noted by pretty much every college football observer.

I loved the concentrated rushing attack against UCLA. I also loved Stanley Morgan Jr.s one handed touchdown grab, one of many exciting pass plays this season that for some reason we're not supposed to celebrate lest we repeat them.

It actually required a higher and more specialized level of across the board talent to run Tom Osborne's option attack, including a far more dominant defense than we have today, one that allowed the offense to get off to slow starts and four yard gains instead of playing catch-up. Much harder to recruit and maintain that kind of dynasty these days.

I'm all for running the ball, as is every coach, but I get tired of all this hand-wringing that passing the ball is for big city slickers and not to the taste and abilities of simple Nebraska folk.

Who are you actually arguing with? This entire post is just one giant strawman. Passing is great, we don't currently have the talent to pass it as much as Riley and co would like, when we go run heavy (not run only) we win games (and have more success in passing situations like when Morgan caught the TD).

I give 0 fu#*$ what offense we run, as long as we win more games than we lose. This year, with a pass heavy offense we lost more than we won (except for the games where we featured the run). This is why I want us to focus on the run, it's what the talent on the team can do. Once we get POB and some other pieces maybe we switch to Riley's preferred offense.

Take a chill pill buddy.

 

[Hujan]

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.

This is what has caused the Husker fans to go nuts all year long. Passing the ball from the one foot line on third down drives me crazy. We were running the ball for 3-7 yards pops all game long, and then the OC throws the ball from the one foot line. I don't think the OC can help himself, he is pass first oriented and wants to pass the ball. The West coast and NFL teams do this all the time and this is what he believes will work. Look how it played out this year.

It can and does work, when you have an offensive line that can consistently provide protection, a quarterback that doesn't throw off his back foot regularly and you need receivers that reliably catch the ball. (UCLA had 1 drop iirc.)

Since we don't have any of that on a consistent basis, you'd agree it was foolish of Langsdorf to try it, right?

Look, when we have Tom Brady under center and Gronkowski on the end of the line, he can throw it from the one foot line all he wants. Until then, RUN THE f'ing BALL.

 

[Hujan]

So, lets go get a big beefy O-Line, and some quick speedster RB's and get this thing going!

For this offense we also need a high quality passing qb and high quality receivers. If we had all of that, this offense would be very exciting.

See, that's the problem with the pro-style offenses. In order to be great, it requires great talent across the board at every position. It can work at schools like USC or Alabama or Florida State, where it's easy to recruit to. But, spread and option offenses don't require amazing talent up and down the offensive roster.

Colorado ran a pro style offense in the early 2000's under Gary Barnett and they whipped us in 2001 62-36. Wisconsin/Bielema ran a pro style power run offense when they destroyed us in the B1G 70-31. Bielema continues to use a power run pro style offense. So, I disagree with you that it can only work at schools like USC, Alabama, Florida State. Nebraska has to get better up front and become a more physical unit in that regard. Nebraska can be a physical team like Stanford, Alabama, and others if it is the mentality they acquire and work their butts off.

This is a great point and is lost on many people. "Pro-style" is not necessarily the problem. Traditionally, a "pro-style" offense is mostly a reference to being under center and tighter formations with more TEs and RBs and fewer WRs, traits that were historically a trademark of NFL offenses. This fact has become blurred as more NFL teams have adopted "spread" concepts with QBs in shotgun or even Pistol formations with 3-4 WRs and single-back sets and TEs whose skillsets are less "offensive lineman" and more "wide receiver."

But, as you point out, a "pro-style" offense does not have to be pass-dominant. There are examples of more run-oriented pro-style systems that worked quite well. Over the last decade, the Ravens might as an example. Certainly the Seahawks the past complete of seasons. I'd also argue the Vikings. In the college ranks, Wisconsin is perhaps the most obvious example, with Stanford another possible example.

The common-denominator in those offenses is a strong offensive line, RBs who can run between the tackles, and an offense that does not ask the QB to put the team on his back every play like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady have to. With a good enough line, TEs, and RBs, a very mediocre QB who is careful with the ball and decently accurate can command a very, very productive offense.

Elite QBs are very rare at the NFL level. At the college level? Give me a break. That is why the most consistently successful programs at the college level have a strong running game. Sure, you can point to some flash-in-the-pan programs who had a lot of success airing it out, but it's fleeting and very dependent on having the rare elite QB at the helm. The Mariottas, Lucks, Leinarts, and RGIIIs of the college world are few and far between. Better to focus on recruiting stout linemen, tight ends, and running backs (in that order), than to hope you land that rare elite QB who can make a pass-heavy offense work on a consistent basis. And that's not even taking into account the region/weather. If you are in the midwest or rustbelt, it's even more imperative.

 

[BRV920]

100% agree with this post Hujan. As long as the offense is predicated on a power running game that runs the ball 60% of the time or more I don't care what it looks like. It's one of the main reasons that Osborne was able to win 9 games every year. It's much easier to find great linemen and runningbacks than elite level QB's.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

This is a great point and is lost on many people. "Pro-style" is not necessarily the problem. Traditionally, a "pro-style" offense is mostly a reference to being under center and tighter formations with more TEs and RBs and fewer WRs, traits that were historically a trademark of NFL offenses. This fact has become blurred as more NFL teams have adopted "spread" concepts with QBs in shotgun or even Pistol formations with 3-4 WRs and single-back sets and TEs whose skillsets are less "offensive lineman" and more "wide receiver."

But, as you point out, a "pro-style" offense does not have to be pass-dominant. There are examples of more run-oriented pro-style systems that worked quite well. Over the last decade, the Ravens might as an example. Certainly the Seahawks the past complete of seasons. I'd also argue the Vikings. In the college ranks, Wisconsin is perhaps the most obvious example, with Stanford another possible example.

The common-denominator in those offenses is a strong offensive line, RBs who can run between the tackles, and an offense that does not ask the QB to put the team on his back every play like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady have to. With a good enough line, TEs, and RBs, a very mediocre QB who is careful with the ball and decently accurate can command a very, very productive offense.

Elite QBs are very rare at the NFL level. At the college level? Give me a break. That is why the most consistently successful programs at the college level have a strong running game. Sure, you can point to some flash-in-the-pan programs who had a lot of success airing it out, but it's fleeting and very dependent on having the rare elite QB at the helm. The Mariottas, Lucks, Leinarts, and RGIIIs of the college world are few and far between. Better to focus on recruiting stout linemen, tight ends, and running backs (in that order), than to hope you land that rare elite QB who can make a pass-heavy offense work on a consistent basis. And that's not even taking into account the region/weather. If you are in the midwest or rustbelt, it's even more imperative.

Agree on a lot of this. I think every coach want a bruising, power-running offense, and the best teams in both college and pros absolutely have strong running games. Still, a powerhouse NFL rushing team like the Seahawks runs maybe a 60/40 split, and considers a 140 yard rushing game dominant. The problem is, most defensive coordinators set out to stop the run first, in both college and pros. The best of them bring serious horses on the D-line. So it's never as easy as declaring your intention to run. Seattle still passes for twice as many yards as they run, and I would argue that Russell Wilson puts the team on his back every play, at least as much as any QB.

So I think it's just as rare and difficult to assemble a top notch OL and RB unit as it is to find an elite college QB.

And when you're citing teams like the Seahawks, Ravens and Vikings (and I'd add Denver), the are also notorious for their defense. I think some people would be surprised how much a shutdown defense helps you look past some of those offensive shortcomings. That's the only way Trent Dilfer wins a Super Bowl.

I like the Wisconsin and Stanford examples, too, but they've also sported top tier defenses and QBs able and willing to throw the ball 40 times a game. Both Wisconsin and Michigan had games where they threw 50 times this year and won. And I'd have to say the QBs still in the running for this years college NC aren't exactly mediocre, or passing averse. Clemson, Oklahoma, Michigan State and Alabama still pass the ball 30 - 35 times a game, supporting and being supported by a strong running game.

I think it all comes back to a strong offensive line -- a pipeline Nebraska was committed to for 40 years -- which basically makes it easier to execute whatever you decide to do. When it comes the notion of "identity" I think we make too much of run-first or pass-first. If I could choose an identity for Nebraska, it would be Lineman University. Offense and Defense. The rest of the good stuff comes out of that.

 

[cm husker]

The pipeline was due to scheme, and rarely elite talent.

Few teams would trade for navy's oline, yet they consistently put yards up against superior athletes.