Guy Chamberlin

By the end of the game, Helfrich had gambled with every single one of his extra points. Each one was worth talking about, and put together they were the story of the game from an Oregon standpoint. A totally avoidable coaching gaffe that may have cost his team the game. Huard was doing the math out loud that Helfrich should have been doing.

I'm with Knapp. I see absolutely no reason to look past Northwestern. Nebraska still has a lot of bugs to get out of their game, and has the tendency to play up or down to each opponent.

Right now, the dream match up in college football would be Houston vs. Louisville. And that's a very weird thing to type.

Brock Huard sounded genuinely impressed by the whole game day experience yesterday. Not in the generic cliche way that announcers do for the network's benefit, but genuinely impressed in that this-is-college-football-at-its-best way. I know it's been years since Nebraska has contended, but Lincoln, Nebraska still means something in college football.

If Nebraska beats Oregon, our chances of losing to Northwestern shoots way up. Just because that's the way these things usually happen.

I thought the offensive line has played pretty well both weeks. I saw a few good holes that weren't put to use, and some very open corners. We were watching Carlos Hyde have a nice game for the 49ers Monday night, and there were a few key plays where you see the play is designed to go up the middle. Hyde stops for just a split second, recognizing the hole has closed, and then bounces to the outside for a good gain. There's a crazy clip from last season where Imani Cross follows his blocks up the middle, completely ignoring a huge opening to the outside where he could have run for 30 yards untouched. I saw a couple similar situations with the Husker RBs already this season. Hyde reminded me that the great running backs aren't always about power and speed. It's the guys with field vision and patience. i.e. a lot of plays that are designed to go up the middle can leave the outside exposed. But it's up to the runner to make that call.

Screens looked a lot better this week, with good out-front blocking and Tommy looking the play off. But man....Tommy still need to learn how to deliver that short touch pass.

So you start with the biggest, nastiest down linemen you can find, and the rest falls out of that.

Remember the two times last year Langsdorf called for Tommy to tuck and run, and Tommy mysteriously chose to throw the ball at a confused receiver? What two times? I remember one time where all sorts of signals were crossed and the receiver sure appeared to be expecting a pass - and the blocking sure seem to look like the OL expected pass. Illinois and UCLA. Essentially the same play in similar third down situations.

Remember the two times last year Langsdorf called for Tommy to tuck and run, and Tommy mysteriously chose to throw the ball at a confused receiver?

Guy was talking about misreading the playcalling and above you said they did try to run outside. Yes, technically they did try. But I don't think four carries per game is trying all that hard. I know the thread is about the two RBs, but we also incorporated Tommy Armstrong, Cethan Carter, Brandon Rieley and DPE into the running game, almost exclusively involving misdirection and popping it outside. That adds another dozen attempts. It's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Against Fresno State we pounded it up the middle for a dependable four to six yards of wear-em-down, control the line offense that we supposedly covet. And iirc the celebration here was pretty muted, because we knew we would have to pass more effectively to beat better opponents. Had we backed off on pounding the middle against Wyoming, that would likely have been a topic of criticism around here. As mentioned, we tried to soften the middle with called rushing plays to Tommy on the outside, and hand it to a receiver a few times a game to pay off the constant misdirection. And it looked to me we replaced a few of those outside runs with fairly well executed bubble screens to both Newby and Ozigbo. Or to look at it another way, if you had a running back who was getting 138 yards on 43 carries, and another running back who was getting 412 yards on 35 carries, who would you go with? The passing game was working pretty well Saturday. It's actually not a slight to the running game, which was workmanlike and productive itself. Like I said, the best teams in college football shift the balance as needed.

No I was responding to Mavric, who posted the Langsdorf comments. I just don't see any direct refuting of what I said in post #147. If it saves time, I want a stronger running game. So does every team. But it's easier said than done. And passing isn't the enemy. That's all.

I think some lose sight of the fact that you don't have to play well enough to beat Ohio State every week. Or that the running game can be working better one week, and the passing game can be working better another. And that's not necessarily football Armageddon.

I mean ... these type of comments are getting really old. If you think how we played is all the better we can play and it'll be good enough to beat Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio State and whoever we play in the B1G championship, that's great for you. But otherwise why can't we also talk about things that can be done better? Yeah but.....how old is the "run the damn ball!"argument getting? And here's the thing: we ran the damn ball 43 times. We ran it inside. We ran it outside. We ran misdirection. We had 7 different ball carriers. We had designed running plays for Tommy including two TDs (one called back). Craig Bohl likely watched our Fresno State game film a decided to stop the run first and dare Tommy Armstrong to beat them with his arm. So Tommy threw for 377 yards and three touchdowns. And we needed pretty much every one of those running plays to make the passing game successful. I never remotely suggested this is all the better Nebraska can play, nor that it's good enough to beat better teams. Far from it. I just happen to think the team needs to get better at a lot of things. Better play in the secondary. Something/anything from special teams. Senior leadership and decision-making from Tommy. Better discipline and execution across the board. Of course this is on both players and coaches. But I think there's a lot of odd misreading of Nebraska playcalling -- going on 12 years now. It simply doesn't accept a good passing day as a successful offense. Fun fact: Alabama went pass-happy to beat Western Kentucky. Michigan went pass-happy to beat UCF. Both teams are likely to mix it up as the season goes on. To answer your original question, we got 550 yards by playing a team that was last in their division in the Mountain West last year. A team where our backups were far superior to their starters. And all we had to do was chuck the ball as far down the field as we could throw it and let our receivers outrun their DBs. Yeah, it was fun, but I don't think it translates very well into winning games that matter a lot more later in the season. Part of wanting to have a good run game is being able be balanced against teams that actually have a defense. Part of wanting to have a good run game is not being in the bottom five of interceptions thrown again this year. Part of wanting to have a good run game is that we have a QB who has proven over and over again that he is prone to bad decisions and the fewer opportunities he has to make those bad decisions, the better off we'll be. And you continue to want to throw out stats without having any context to them. "LOOK!!!! We ran the ball! All is well with the world!" Our OLine outweighed Wyoming's DLine by 50 pounds per man and yet the guy who many consider our best RB averaged 2.9 yards per carry on 14 carries. You're welcome to feel like everything is fine and mock those who bring up the part that we might need to be better than that. But that's a pretty naive view. Yes, the team needs to be better at a lot of things. But considering this is a thread about our Running Backs, I thought discussion them and the associated running game may be appropriate. Crazy thoughts, I know. And you might need to direct your "why are you complaining about these big wins" toward a more appropriate source - Riley and Langsorf. Riley was definitely not pleased last week. Langsdorf did everything but say TA isn't getting the job done last week. And here's Sipple's comments about Langsdorf's response to this week's game which you don't think can be complained about: LJS I agree with Langsdorf's comments. They don't run counter to any of mine. I'm not sure you actually read my post #147.

Nebraska should be defense based. We would win more games and stop worrying about our offensive identity.

What is Alabama trying to be?

Nebraska rushed 43 times against Wyoming and passed 35 times. Alabama rushed 39 times against Western Kentucky and passed 42 times. Florida State rushed 36 times against Charleston Southern and passed 35 times. Even Iowa rushed 36 times and passed 30 times in dominating Iowa State. Michigan and the coach we wished we had rushed 41 times for 119 yards against UCF and passed 41 times for 328 yards in a dominant win In the same game, UCF and the coach we wish we had rushed 46 times for 275 times and completed 6 of 22 passes for 56 yards in the loss. The best teams in college football run and pass and change the ratio from game to game and don't really care what you call their identity as long as they're winning. I don't wish for Harbaugh or Frost.... They're both good coaches. Who are likely to call the same plays as Nebraska's current coaching staff.

Yeah. That's the thing. I've been on this board for years now and the people who bring up the "offensive philosophy/identity" question only consider three possible answers: Run First, Pass First, or Balanced. And two of those options will never work at Nebraska. So thanks for asking, but I'll pass. I mean, run.

Nebraska rushed 43 times against Wyoming and passed 35 times. Alabama rushed 39 times against Western Kentucky and passed 42 times. Florida State rushed 36 times against Charleston Southern and passed 35 times. Even Iowa rushed 36 times and passed 30 times in dominating Iowa State. Michigan and the coach we wished we had rushed 41 times for 119 yards against UCF and passed 41 times for 328 yards in a dominant win In the same game, UCF and the coach we wish we had rushed 46 times for 275 times and completed 6 of 22 passes for 56 yards in the loss. The best teams in college football run and pass and change the ratio from game to game and don't really care what you call their identity as long as they're winning.

Who the hell cares what I'd call? I'm just another guy on a fanboard who thinks his play call would totally have worked because he knows it will never, ever have be put to the test. Personally? I love the naked bootleg. I like fullback traps in that situation, too. If I have only one call with Tommy around the goal, it's probably some kind of rollout that spreads the d-line and gives him the choice to cut in, stretch out to the pylon, or make a short easy throw to one or more open receivers. If it's only first down he can kill the ball and have two or three more shots. I'm almost certain Langsdorf didn't call for Tommy to throw the ball directly into the hands of a Wyoming player. You may forget that Nebraska finds itself first and goal more than once in a game and like every other coach in football, Langsdorf will have more than one call in that situation. IIRC, he called two QB keepers for Tommy and he got two touchdowns out of them, though one was called back.

I mean ... these type of comments are getting really old. If you think how we played is all the better we can play and it'll be good enough to beat Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio State and whoever we play in the B1G championship, that's great for you. But otherwise why can't we also talk about things that can be done better? Yeah but.....how old is the "run the damn ball!"argument getting? And here's the thing: we ran the damn ball 43 times. We ran it inside. We ran it outside. We ran misdirection. We had 7 different ball carriers. We had designed running plays for Tommy including two TDs (one called back). Craig Bohl likely watched our Fresno State game film a decided to stop the run first and dare Tommy Armstrong to beat them with his arm. So Tommy threw for 377 yards and three touchdowns. And we needed pretty much every one of those running plays to make the passing game successful. I never remotely suggested this is all the better Nebraska can play, nor that it's good enough to beat better teams. Far from it. I just happen to think the team needs to get better at a lot of things. Better play in the secondary. Something/anything from special teams. Senior leadership and decision-making from Tommy. Better discipline and execution across the board. Of course this is on both players and coaches. But I think there's a lot of odd misreading of Nebraska playcalling -- going on 12 years now. It simply doesn't accept a good passing day as a successful offense. Fun fact: Alabama went pass-happy to beat Western Kentucky. Michigan went pass-happy to beat UCF. Both teams are likely to mix it up as the season goes on.

Ah. I think the Oakland Raiders came out with 7 defenders on a potential game-winning field goal after just taking a time out against the Saints today.

You're over-thinking it. Most defenses line up to stop the run on a first and goal because a rushing play is the statistical probability. Making a quick roll-out with multiple receivers and the option for the quarterback to tuck and run a perfectly reasonable call. Even if unsuccessful, it might loosen things up for the running play on second down. The call wasn't cute. It wasn't gimmicky. It was just football. And our quarterback made a terrible decision. The same quarterback went on to make several successful completions with a higher degree of difficulty. If a coach is supposed to scale the game back so far that Tommy Armstrong can't possibly make a stupid play, then Tommy simply shouldn't be playing. But it would be pretty weird to bench the most prolific offensive player in Nebraska football history.

BTN treats Nebraska like a newcomer to the Big 10, who every year promises to disrupt the order but never really delivers.

I don't get it.