22 - 9 - 58%

ColoradoHusk said:
While I enjoy a good/great running game in college, I wonder if NU would be better going full Purdue (under Tiller) and go full spread, 4-5 WR's and try to throw the ball all over the place.  I just don't think a "balanced" offense works great, unless you have amazing o-lines or if you have a mobile QB where you can go full RPO's nearly every play.
Click to expand...


I definitely think there is something to this.  We had a thread awhile ago discussing comment about how you may really need a good OL to have a top-notch WCO.  I said a dozen years ago (Callahan hire) that the problem with going WCO was we were now recruiting in the same pool as Alabama, USC, etc where if you run option (at the time) you're competing against a smaller set of opponents.

I'm not sure about an Air Raid-type offense but I think your point is valid.  I actually think the Oregon-style that we were attempting a few years ago is the way to go for us.  Get an athletic QB and you can still have a top-shelf rushing attack without a great OL.  But we need a QB who is a more accurate passer than what we had to be a complete offense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
StPaulHusker said:
Their 6 loss point total doesn't even equal the point differential of Nebraska vs Ohio St so I'm not going to bash on them for that
Click to expand...
But that's exactly what Northwestern tries to do in every game.  They try to play close, capitalize on other team's mistakes, and try to win close games in the 4th quarter.

That's why the best years, NW goes 10-3 or 9-4, in terrible years they go 4-8 or 5-7, and most years they win 6-7 games.

 
Mavric said:
I definitely think there is something to this.  We had a thread awhile ago discussing comment about how you may really need a good OL to have a top-notch WCO.  I said a dozen years ago (Callahan hire) that the problem with going WCO was we were now recruiting in the same pool as Alabama, USC, etc where if you run option (at the time) you're competing against a smaller set of opponents.

I'm not sure about an Air Raid-type offense but I think your point is valid.  I actually think the Oregon-style that we were attempting a few years ago is the way to go for us.  Get an athletic QB and you can still have a top-shelf rushing attack without a great OL.  But we need a QB who is a more accurate passer than what we had to be a complete offense.
Click to expand...
I am with you.  Get an athletic QB to go along with athletes at WR and RB and try to mimic's Oregon's offense.  NU just needs to do a better job recruiting passing QB's than they did under Pelini.  I don't get the idea of you either have to get a running QB or a passing QB, there are enough out there that can do both.

 
Mavric said:
Because the design of our running game - at least what we've seen in the past two years - does not lend itself to much success.  Literally 60% of our RB runs are called between the guards.  Another 20% inside the tackles.  There simply is not much running room there no matter how good your OL is.  We made Northwestern's DT look like an All-American two years ago because we just kept running right at him.  

And that is combined with Langs' impatience with the running game.  A two-yard gain seems like a loss to him.  Literally.  Now that he has a QB who can actually throw the ball, I don't see him having much reason to keep trying to run.
Click to expand...


I see, this is why you are so negative on the run game.  You assume the run game will look exactly like last year minus the QB running option. I guess I think our OC and HC are a little smarter than that.

I don't think they were truly comfortable with TA running the ball, even though he was good at it,  I think they cringed every time he ran and hoped he didn't get hurt.  It just wasn't in their comfort zone.    I really think we will see some different stuff.   I think we will see more outside stuff than you assume.  They showed a lot more outside stuff in the spring game. 

As far as the pass game opening up the run.  It definitely can happen, it just depends on what a team really wants to do as an offense.  A team like Washington St doesn't use the pass to open up the run game, because that is not what they want to do.  All the run is to Mike Leach is a change of pace to keep the other team honest.  

A team that is more balanced does have a more complimentary run/pass game.  A team that wants to be close to 50-50 run/pass will do well as long as they are a pretty good passing team.  When they have to truly respect the pass game they can't just set with 8 guys in the box, this is what happened a lot with NU the last few years.  Being able to make a team pay for man to man coverage will help loosen up the box.  

I know you are really concerned about this and think MR and DL are going to go full on air raid, but I just don't think that is the case.  

 
NUinID said:
I see, this is why you are so negative on the run game.  You assume the run game will look exactly like last year minus the QB running option. I guess I think our OC and HC are a little smarter than that.

I don't think they were truly comfortable with TA running the ball, even though he was good at it,  I think they cringed every time he ran and hoped he didn't get hurt.  It just wasn't in their comfort zone.    I really think we will see some different stuff.   I think we will see more outside stuff than you assume.  They showed a lot more outside stuff in the spring game. 

As far as the pass game opening up the run.  It definitely can happen, it just depends on what a team really wants to do as an offense.  A team like Washington St doesn't use the pass to open up the run game, because that is not what they want to do.  All the run is to Mike Leach is a change of pace to keep the other team honest.  

A team that is more balanced does have a more complimentary run/pass game.  A team that wants to be close to 50-50 run/pass will do well as long as they are a pretty good passing team.  When they have to truly respect the pass game they can't just set with 8 guys in the box, this is what happened a lot with NU the last few years.  Being able to make a team pay for man to man coverage will help loosen up the box.  

I know you are really concerned about this and think MR and DL are going to go full on air raid, but I just don't think that is the case.  
Click to expand...
But, if a team can sit back in coverage and defend the run with 5 guys and limit the damage, it's not going to be an effective offense either.

Teams won't have to play NU in straight up man-to-man coverage because they will be able to defend the pass, and force NU to run the ball effectively.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
But, if a team can sit back in coverage and defend the run with 5 guys and limit the damage, it's not going to be an effective offense either.

Teams won't have to play NU in straight up man-to-man coverage because they will be able to defend the pass, and force NU to run the ball effectively.
Click to expand...


I guess if you think are o-line is going to be that bad that we can't run the ball against 5 in the box then Nebraska is in trouble next year.  

 
So....the gist of this argument is that people believe Nebraska's running game is so pathetic that we won't be able to run on teams who are defending it with only 6 players.  Is this why some people are predicting we are going to lose 5-7 games?  They think that there are 5-7 teams on our schedule that can defend our run with only 6 players.

I'm guessing we will face very few teams that will be able to do that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NUinID said:
I see, this is why you are so negative on the run game.  You assume the run game will look exactly like last year minus the QB running option. I guess I think our OC and HC are a little smarter than that.

I don't think they were truly comfortable with TA running the ball, even though he was good at it,  I think they cringed every time he ran and hoped he didn't get hurt.  It just wasn't in their comfort zone.    I really think we will see some different stuff.   I think we will see more outside stuff than you assume.  They showed a lot more outside stuff in the spring game. 

As far as the pass game opening up the run.  It definitely can happen, it just depends on what a team really wants to do as an offense.  A team like Washington St doesn't use the pass to open up the run game, because that is not what they want to do.  All the run is to Mike Leach is a change of pace to keep the other team honest.  

A team that is more balanced does have a more complimentary run/pass game.  A team that wants to be close to 50-50 run/pass will do well as long as they are a pretty good passing team.  When they have to truly respect the pass game they can't just set with 8 guys in the box, this is what happened a lot with NU the last few years.  Being able to make a team pay for man to man coverage will help loosen up the box.  

I know you are really concerned about this and think MR and DL are going to go full on air raid, but I just don't think that is the case.  
Click to expand...


There is no reason why they couldn't have called more outside runs with RBs the last two years.  You can hope it changes, but I don't know why it would be expected to change.

Langs has said that we are an Inside Zone team.  He has shown that to be true with the plays he's actually called during the games.  Perhaps he will have a change of heart.  But I'm not holding my breath.  

It is possible for the passing game to open up the running game to some degree.  But there are at least three problems with that line of thinking in our case:

  1. To do that you have to pass more, generally speaking.  A defense isn't going to make large changes to something that hurts them a few plays per game.  You have to consistantly do it.  Thus, that would lead to more passing.
  2. If you're better at doing something, why wouldn't you do more of that thing?  That is only common sense.  Two years ago we threw it 35 times per game despite completing a poor percentage and nearly leading the country in interceptions.  If we complete a higher percentage and throw fewer INTs, why wouldn't we throw it more?
  3. This is the biggest one that none of the "we can't run the ball" people like to acknowledge.  The argument that the passing game can open up the running game is ignoring the type of personnel that we like to us.  We run a lot of 21 and 12 personnel.  That's nine offensive players in the formation with only two wide receivers.  There is no reason for the defense to have fewer than seven in the box against those formation and they can have an eighth close by.  That's not "stacking the box" - that is correctly aligning to our formation.  If there are 7-8 guys in the box and you're an Inside Zone team, it is extremely tough to create much space to run in.  There are simply too many bodies to get in the way.  That's just the simple math of how we are lining up.
It is also interesting which parts of things you like to focus on.  You claim we saw more outside running in the spring game so we should expect more of that going forward.  That's possible - I'd have to go back and watch more.  But one game vs. two years of history isn't exactly conclusive. 

We also saw 95 passes compared to 40 rushing attempts.  Does that mean that we should expect 70% pass plays going forward?

 
Mavric said:
It is possible for the passing game to open up the running game to some degree.  But there are at least three problems with that line of thinking in our case:

  1. To do that you have to pass more, generally speaking.  A defense isn't going to make large changes to something that hurts them a few plays per game.  You have to consistantly do it.  Thus, that would lead to more passing.
Click to expand...
This is faulty thinking.

Last year TA threw for 51.4%  with 14TDs and 8 INTs.....2180 yards. (11 games)

This was on 294 attempts.  That means he completed only 13.7 out of 26.7 passes.  

Now, let's raise that to the 60% completion percentage.  That means we will have more successful plays.  Probably more first downs that keep drives going.  Add to that more TDs through the air and that means we have more defenses on their heals trying to stop it.

Now.....where this is going to go bad is if we can not complete these passes with WRs being defended one on one.  I firmly believe we have a QB and WRs to make that not happen.

 
StPaulHusker said:
But you are talking "rushing stats" as a whole.  Take out the QB rushing and Nebraska falls to 129 yards a game.  NW is still at 158.  

Now tell me that a rushing attack that nets you 129 a game is fine if the QB goes 22-9-58%.  

This is the only point I'm making.  Lee having that stat line without better RB play is not good for the Huskers
Click to expand...


You can't just take something out and call it good.  Plays that were designed to be qb draws may now become delayed handoff's to the RB - so half those yards come back to the RB. 

 
Mavric said:
There is no reason why they couldn't have called more outside runs with RBs the last two years.  You can hope it changes, but I don't know why it would be expected to change.

Langs has said that we are an Inside Zone team.  He has shown that to be true with the plays he's actually called during the games.  Perhaps he will have a change of heart.  But I'm not holding my breath.  

It is possible for the passing game to open up the running game to some degree.  But there are at least three problems with that line of thinking in our case:

  1. To do that you have to pass more, generally speaking.  A defense isn't going to make large changes to something that hurts them a few plays per game.  You have to consistantly do it.  Thus, that would lead to more passing.
  2. If you're better at doing something, why wouldn't you do more of that thing?  That is only common sense.  Two years ago we threw it 35 times per game despite completing a poor percentage and nearly leading the country in interceptions.  If we complete a higher percentage and throw fewer INTs, why wouldn't we throw it more?
  3. This is the biggest one that none of the "we can't run the ball" people like to acknowledge.  The argument that the passing game can open up the running game is ignoring the type of personnel that we like to us.  We run a lot of 21 and 12 personnel.  That's nine offensive players in the formation with only two wide receivers.  There is no reason for the defense to have fewer than seven in the box against those formation and they can have an eighth close by.  That's not "stacking the box" - that is correctly aligning to our formation.  If there are 7-8 guys in the box and you're an Inside Zone team, it is extremely tough to create much space to run in.  There are simply too many bodies to get in the way.  That's just the simple math of how we are lining up.
It is also interesting which parts of things you like to focus on.  You claim we saw more outside running in the spring game so we should expect more of that going forward.  That's possible - I'd have to go back and watch more.  But one game vs. two years of history isn't exactly conclusive. 

We also saw 95 passes compared to 40 rushing attempts.  Does that mean that we should expect 70% pass plays going forward?
Click to expand...


Actually a higher completion % is  take care of this more than bumping up the amount of attempts -  Hitting closer to 2 out of 3 passes will catch every defenses attention.

 
GBRFAN said:
You can't just take something out and call it good.  Plays that were designed to be qb draws may now become delayed handoff's to the RB - so half those yards come back to the RB. 
Click to expand...
Can you read?  I can take out QB rushing when i am specifically speaking about Running Back rushing.  

GBRFAN said:
Man, where were you when NU lost 7 games with a total of 30 points or whatever a couple years ago.....
Click to expand...
What in the blue hell are you talking about?

 
  • Plus1
Reactions: GSG
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top