Spring Practice - Offensive Line

[spurs1990]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.

Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

 

[suh_fan93]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.

Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

 

[spurs1990]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.
Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

Those examples were just there to show that averaging 400 ypg is irrational. Ohio State and Alabama admittedly better examples.

 

[dvdcrr]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.
Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

Those examples were just there to show that averaging 400 ypg is irrational. Ohio State and Alabama admittedly better examples.

Funny, I don't see the word "irrational" on either of the Sears trophies we won.

 

[Nebfanatic]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.
Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

Those examples were just there to show that averaging 400 ypg is irrational. Ohio State and Alabama admittedly better examples.

Funny, I don't see the word "irrational" on either of the Sears trophies we won.

It's irrational to think that 400 ypg on the ground is an appropriate standard by which we judge our running game in 2017. The days of which you speak are long gone. Accept that and don't be an bad guy about it

 

[Husker from Kansas]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.
Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

Those examples were just there to show that averaging 400 ypg is irrational. Ohio State and Alabama admittedly better examples.

Funny, I don't see the word "irrational" on either of the Sears trophies we won.

If we ran the ball almost exclusively in order to try to reach this 400 yard mark, then our passing game would be almost non existent. At that point when we would be in a situation where the passing game was needed (because running for 400 yards per game would never happen) then people would be complaining about how our coaches are inept because were not passing for 250+ yards per game. There is no perfect number on passing vs. rushing yards. A good offense is one that is adaptable and is able to score enough points to win the game. If we run for 400 ypg. but only average 17 ppg. then that offense blows. However if we average 165 ypg. but are scoring 35 points per, then I who cares because were probably winning a lot more

 

[dvdcrr]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.
Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

Those examples were just there to show that averaging 400 ypg is irrational. Ohio State and Alabama admittedly better examples.

Funny, I don't see the word "irrational" on either of the Sears trophies we won.

If we ran the ball almost exclusively in order to try to reach this 400 yard mark, then our passing game would be almost non existent. At that point when we would be in a situation where the passing game was needed (because running for 400 yards per game would never happen) then people would be complaining about how our coaches are inept because were not passing for 250+ yards per game. There is no perfect number on passing vs. rushing yards. A good offense is one that is adaptable and is able to score enough points to win the game. If we run for 400 ypg. but only average 17 ppg. then that offense blows. However if we average 165 ypg. but are scoring 35 points per, then I who cares because were probably winning a lot more

I am enjoying this discussuon, thank you. While the the 90's teams did not pass much, they passed with great success. Tight ends were wide open for huge gains, Tom really knew what he was doing. Using the run to set up the pass worked very well. Saying that 400 ypg is unattainable today is just flat wrong. In fact it would be easier today than ever. Defensive players today are not brought up facing loaded backfields, wishbones or triple option teams. The fact is that all the coaches who did it are retired and styles have changed. Monkey see, monkey do.Maybe the main reason that the game has shifted to passing is that the rules have changed to allow prolific passing, and coaches see this and are not stupid. You cant hit the QB like you used to, you cant use a hard hitting free safety either. At the same time running the ball really has not gotten any breaks.

To me saying 400 ypg is not sensible anymore is like saying to a high school high jumper, "you know 6'8" really isnt sensible any more. Sure it is, depending on your abilities and how hard you work!

 

[dvdcrr]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.
Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

Those examples were just there to show that averaging 400 ypg is irrational. Ohio State and Alabama admittedly better examples.

Funny, I don't see the word "irrational" on either of the Sears trophies we won.

It's irrational to think that 400 ypg on the ground is an appropriate standard by which we judge our running game in 2017. The days of which you speak are long gone. Accept that and don't be an bad guy about it

Not worth a response.

 

[spurs1990]

I read the article, and I am befuddled by Riley. He wants to get all real on the Offensive line. Talking out both sides of his mouth. After soundly beating UCLA by pounding the ball, Riley comes out and says running will be integral and they aim to be a top 3 rushing team in the conference. Then they immediately go backwards rushing for 11 less ypg, and finishing 9th in the B10. 169 ypg. So I guess what Riley says really doesnt mean much. Or it only goes until 3rd down, then chuck it. I remember clearly when we used to rush for 400 ypg.

Two things:
1. You can have a plan, but if your personnel can't handle it then you won't accomplish it. Thus was the case the year following the UCLA bowl game.

2. Lord have mercy are you going back to the 90's? 400 rush yards per game? No one in the NCAA came close to that as an average (highest being 350 ypg). That includes teams that are all option all the time. Please come back to the current era of football.

No. The 1993,94,95,97 Huskers could line up and kick the dogsh** out of these kids. Why would I come back to that.

Mike Riley apologizes for not being 90's Nebraska football in 2017.

Cmon. Hit me with some truth. Justify 169 ypg. Justify listening to a man that says one thing then does another. Justify the low achievement of Husker football these days.

Well hard to generate a valid argument when your comparison was the best rushing attack college football has ever seen. Lofty expectations. You're right in comparison to the 90's we are exceptionally low achievement. My argument is that you'll probably never see that again and it's not reasonable to expect 400 yards a game.
Just for kicks, Clemson averaged 169 yards per game on the ground as well. Ohio State and Alabama are both below 250. Year before, Alabama averaged below 200 ypg. Physical football doesn't have to be defined by the number of rush yards.

Also, he did set a lofty rushing goal, but if we were watching the same games, our rushing attack was not successful. If you're the head coach of a team where the run game is not successful, what do you do? By the looks of this board, no body thinks we have any capable players to make a run game happen so you can't just force it. It's year three. His recruits are just now starting to grow up. So as I've said before, patience is what we need as opposed to snap judgements based on what we all know was not a team that could run the ball for 400 yards a game (FYI no team in the country is).

Last thing. UCLA was considerably more vulnerable to the run than a decent chunk of Big 10 Schools. Looks like only 4-5 Big 10 schools allowed more YPA than the Bruins (We were one, thanks Banker). That's especially not good since the Pac 12 is a pass heavy league.. That game was good game planning and attacking a weakness that doesn't generally exist week to week in the Big 10.

Clemson runs a spread offense that does NOT emphasize the run and Alabama (245) and OSU (245.2) both are in the top 12 of the entire FBS in rushing when it comes to YPG.

Those examples were just there to show that averaging 400 ypg is irrational. Ohio State and Alabama admittedly better examples.

Funny, I don't see the word "irrational" on either of the Sears trophies we won.

It's irrational to think that 400 ypg on the ground is an appropriate standard by which we judge our running game in 2017. The days of which you speak are long gone. Accept that and don't be an bad guy about it

Not worth a response.

As is almost the entirety of your outdated thoughts, but we are on a message board so round and round we go on irrelevant points :facepalm: The stats that I looked up showed no team getting any closer than 365 YPG and that dated back to 2002-2003. I didn't look back any further, but I'd guess that trend probably continued back further. Those top teams included the likes of Navy, Georgia Southern, and Georgia Tech. Most years it was closer to 315-330 though and anything over 350 generally seemed to be an outlier. Probably more to that than monkey see monkey do.

You did touch on a valid point and that is that football today has been geared towards a high pace passing attack. Slamming your head against a loaded box just isn't going to cut it. Kudos to you for seeing that!

 

[HuskermanMike]

So our offensive line needs some work. It does not need to produce 400 yards per game rushing the ball, but it would help if it produced 220 or more a game. We will have more passing yards than rushing yards this year, and that is fine if it gets us more W's. We need to average around 500 yards per game of offense if we want to be an elite team, and we need to be able to find ways to get yards on the upper competition we play. Nebraska can beat 8 teams with better talent and bigger o-line, the next 4 teams will be huge to see how far this line has come. Those 4 teams are OSU, PSU, Iowa, Wiscy. Oregon is in a rebuild but we are much bigger on the line than they are.

 

[TGHusker]

I'd be thrilled to beat Iowa and Wiscy in the same year. A added plum of PSU would be great. OSU - I don't think we are there yet unless D's defense turns out to be an amazing turnaround.

 

[dvdcrr]

You're right. 400 yds per game rushing is ridiculous. We should instead set our sights on 500. After all the huskers rushed for an average of 530 ypg over their first two games in 1995 and had over 500 yds total offense in their third game AT THE HALF.

And yes, always expect the best.

Like this guy said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVzETb9FSMw

 

[Nebfanatic]

Kewl the 95 huskers were awesome. But it's 20 years later dude, time to move on

And if this isn't clear enough. We should always strive for excellence. I want to see us win a CFP and that should always be our goal. Hopefully someday we will. But we will never ever........EVER rush for over 400 ypg in a season again. Those days are gone. Football has changed. It just won't happen, and I am sorry to be the one to break it to you.

 

[BRV920]

Kewl the 95 huskers were awesome. But it's 20 years later dude, time to move on

And if this isn't clear enough. We should always strive for excellence. I want to see us win a CFP and that should always be our goal. Hopefully someday we will. But we will never ever........EVER rush for over 400 ypg in a season again. Those days are gone. Football has changed. It just won't happen, and I am sorry to be the one to break it to you.

This only thing that's changed about football is that we no longer have one of the greatest offensive minds in history as our coach.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Kewl the 95 huskers were awesome. But it's 20 years later dude, time to move on

And if this isn't clear enough. We should always strive for excellence. I want to see us win a CFP and that should always be our goal. Hopefully someday we will. But we will never ever........EVER rush for over 400 ypg in a season again. Those days are gone. Football has changed. It just won't happen, and I am sorry to be the one to break it to you.

This only thing that's changed about football is that we no longer have one of the greatest offensive minds in history as our coach.

You keep telling yourself that.