RUN THE BALL!!!

[Mavric]

I agree, my point is, even a power ti team will have a game where they pass more.

And yet they're still winning. Handily.

How did we do when we passed more?

 

[xlbder]

Someone one this board said our rushing game worked against MSU because we were passing effectively.

I think it was exactly the opposite. We had an effective running game against MSU that allowed our passing to be more effective.

Newby was injured so they featured Cross. Since Cross had not been effective rushing outside they used lots if power sets

with Jano in there and a TE. They even used the I formation!!!! Voila, we ran well AND passed well.

MSU is no slouch against the run.

MSU got torched by Alabama but the held Derrick Henry to 75 yards on 20 carries.

MSU held Ohio State to under 100 yards rushing and Ezekiel Elliot had 33 yards on 12 carries.

MSU had 12th best rushing defense in nation.

We rushed for 179 yards and Cross had 98 yards on 18 carries. Jano had 26 on 4 carries.

The board erupted with how the players were finally buying into the coaches system. Nonsense.

The coaches had been featuring a passing attack with a QB that isn't the best passer. The runs were being

made from passing formations and our OL wasn't dominate enough to open holes. We didn't run well and we didn't pass well,

Had we lined up against Purdue in the I formation every play I believe we win that game.

The coaching staff finally came around and started calling plays the team could execute.

But they hold full blame for losing many winnable games.

The reason this board spent much more time addressing the running game rather than the defense is because we could

see we had a strong running back corps not being used effectively. The woes of our defense had no easy solutions

but the Husker NATION knows Nebraska football. All we had to do is come out and hit them in the mouth.

I doubt Riley will accept this lesson, and fully expect him to go back to his pass first mentality. But I hope I'm wrong.

 

[cm husker]

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.
And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.
I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????
It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

 

[Saunders]

That's a half story.

Example:

BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)

Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)

Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)

That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the runass ratio in losses is 48:52

Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.

Please enlighten.

It's rather simple. Look types of running plays (and when we used them) vs Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Northwestern... vs what we did vs MSU and UCLA. Hell, Purdue's rush D was worse than UCLA's, and we couldn't have been more vanilla in the run game against the boilermakers.

It's not my job to gather info from your statements.

Specifically, what did we do that was different?

More importantly, was there more zone blocking? Man? Iso runs? Reads? Fullback? Power? Personnel (21, 11, 12)? Bueller?

Don't feel like typing it out on my phone, so here you go.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.
And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.
I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????
It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

TO was the catalyst for everything. One of the main parts that made him successful was him relying on Epley and his weight training program.

You lose credibility if you don't realize how important that was to our success. Again, it's well documented how advanced our program was for its time.

 

[cm husker]

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.
And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.
I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????
It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

TO was the catalyst for everything. One of the main parts that made him successful was him relying on Epley and his weight training program.
You lose credibility if you don't realize how important that was to our success. Again, it's well documented how advanced our program was for its time.

You lose credibility when your posts reveal a lack of reading comprehension and reading more into what I wrote than I did.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.
And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.
I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????
It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

TO was the catalyst for everything. One of the main parts that made him successful was him relying on Epley and his weight training program.
You lose credibility if you don't realize how important that was to our success. Again, it's well documented how advanced our program was for its time.

You lose credibility when your posts reveal a lack of reading comprehension and reading more into what I wrote than I did.

That's possibly going both ways then.

 

[BigWillie]

It's not my job to gather info from your statements.
Specifically, what did we do that was different?

More importantly, was there more zone blocking? Man? Iso runs? Reads? Fullback? Power? Personnel (21, 11, 12)? Bueller?

Don't feel like typing it out on my phone, so here you go.

So you want me to go thru 5 hours of video to confirm your blanket statement for you? #cmonson

I'll wait until you are off your phone.

 

[xlbder]

That's a half story.

Example:

BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)

Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)

Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)

That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the runass ratio in losses is 48:52

Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.

Please enlighten.

It's rather simple. Look types of running plays (and when we used them) vs Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Northwestern... vs what we did vs MSU and UCLA. Hell, Purdue's rush D was worse than UCLA's, and we couldn't have been more vanilla in the run game against the boilermakers.

It's not my job to gather info from your statements.

Specifically, what did we do that was different?

More importantly, was there more zone blocking? Man? Iso runs? Reads? Fullback? Power? Personnel (21, 11, 12)? Bueller?

Don't feel like typing it out on my phone, so here you go.

Had to watch that Purdue game again. Turnover's killed us. A long snap out of the shotgun formation and all those interceptions? Why were we throwing the ball all over the field? We had to in the 4th quarter because we were down so many. Our defense gave up a lot of points but the four turnovers were on the offense.

They were not stopping the run. Not when we lined up in a run formation. Purdue was dead last in the BIG in giving up 2.8 yards after contact. Why didn't we line up in the I every formation? If I never see the running back standing beside the quarterback again, I would be fine by that. Still, Cross had a nice 9 yard TD run out of that single back formation. But the longest run of the game, 22 yards by Newby, came out of the I formation. We lined up in the I maybe five times. Versus that single back standing beside the quarterback maybe 50. What's that formation called, with two backs, but one lined up over tackle? We ran that more than the I. But still way less than that single back formation with three wideouts

We lined up in two back sets much more against MSU. Sigh...

 

[Saunders]

It's not my job to gather info from your statements.
Specifically, what did we do that was different?

More importantly, was there more zone blocking? Man? Iso runs? Reads? Fullback? Power? Personnel (21, 11, 12)? Bueller?

Don't feel like typing it out on my phone, so here you go.

It's not a "blanket statement" at all, it's on the tape. We ran more with a lead blocker (lots of 21 personnel), and used guys correctly (i.e. Cross inside, not on sweeps to outside the tackles). We actually gave Jano the ball (hello 0 carries vs Iowa). Go read any of the post UCLA analysis (IIRC McKeown touched on it) or listen to the HOL podcast, and they said they same thing.

 

[Enhance]

Btw....Stanford is about 50-50 right now on pass vs run against Iowa.

They are known for their power run game.

My issue with throwing the football is never the act of throwing itself, but when and how the team chooses to the throw the ball at times. I think there were crucial moments and sequences this year where they elected to throw the ball in a situation where running would've been more advantageous. I do realize, however, the Huskers sometimes lacked the push and consistency along the offensive line they needed.

In regards to Stanford specifically, however, I do believe it is important to point out that Kevin Hogan is a 65.9 percent career passer. Throwing the football is significantly more lucrative with an arm like that.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Btw....Stanford is about 50-50 right now on pass vs run against Iowa.

They are known for their power run game.

My issue with throwing the football is never the act of throwing itself, but when and how the team chooses to the throw the ball at times. I think there were crucial moments and sequences this year where they elected to throw the ball in a situation where running would've been more advantageous. I do realize, however, the Huskers sometimes lacked the push and consistency along the offensive line they needed.
In regards to Stanford specifically, however, I do believe it is important to point out that Kevin Hogan is a 65.9 percent career passer. Throwing the football is significantly more lucrative with an arm like that.

Understand...and I can agree with much of that.

 

[Enhance]

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.
And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.
I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????
It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

Can you specifically point to where he said "Epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius," please?

I can't find it.

What he is saying, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that Epley had a significant impact on the program, one that is often deeply praised and well-respected among former players and coaches in the program. Furthermore, Epley is nationally known in the college athletics landscape as the godfather of modern sports strength and conditioning. He was a foundational pillar of success at Nebraska, but certainly not the biggest or only reason they were successful.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill with what BigRedBuster was saying.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.
And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.
I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????
It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

Can you specifically point to where he said "Epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius," please?
I can't find it.

What he is saying, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that Epley had a significant impact on the program, one that is often deeply praised and well-respected among former players and coaches in the program. Furthermore, Epley is nationally known in the college athletics landscape as the godfather of modern sports strength and conditioning. He was a foundational pillar of success at Nebraska, but certainly not the biggest or only reason they were successful.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill with what BigRedBuster was saying.

Thank you!!!

 

[cm husker]

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.
And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.
I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????
It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

Can you specifically point to where he said "Epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius," please?
I can't find it.

What he is saying, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that Epley had a significant impact on the program, one that is often deeply praised and well-respected among former players and coaches in the program. Furthermore, Epley is nationally known in the college athletics landscape as the godfather of modern sports strength and conditioning. He was a foundational pillar of success at Nebraska, but certainly not the biggest or only reason they were successful.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill with what BigRedBuster was saying.

It's as though you didn't read the entire conversation. He said that NU was more physically talented than almost everyone that they played because of epley.
I don't think they were more physically talented than every single team or even the supermajority of teams that they played, even some of the teams they beat badly in those years. Epley or not.

Osborne, his schemes and his ability to get guys to execute, is why NU steamrolled for 30 years. Know I I know? Because there were plenty of other programs as talented as NU who have not maintained that level of success.

P.s. I highly appreciate epleys influence and impact. I wish he'd maintained that focus through the late 90s and early 00s instead of handing duties off to GAs so he could pursue side interests.