Hardnose fb vs WCO

[Pedro Guerrero]

I think when the QB became the first option in the running game things changed.

[gamecocks]

The truth is our line and running game has went down hill since 2000. They have no longer been as dominate nor have they been able to flat out wear down opponents.

 

Rush yds/game yards/carry

2000- 349.3 6.0

2001- 314.7 5.6

2002- 268.7 5.6

2003- 235.6 4.3

 

Our hardnosed football wasn't so hard nosed the last couple of years. We have been going down hill because we don't have the dominate lineman that we use to. I find it really hard to believe that with our coaches that we had last year that we would of improved in our rushing attack this year. Changes had to be made and although we have no seen improvements this year, we have an opportunity in a new offense to make improvements during the LONG HAUL of it. It takes more than ten games to put in a whole new system and I am willing to watch and see what happens.

[Utah_Husker]

I thought I did in that last post.  It's pounding the defense.  Punishing them instead of absorbing punishment.  Running draws out of WCO formations does not do that.  That punishes the running back without really hurting the defense at all.  And when you say we haven't done that for many years, I don't know what you're talking about.  These last two years weren't outstanding, but up through 2001, I think we were pretty consistent at wearing out defenses.  Even in the Colorado blowout, we scored 36 points, rolled up 354 rusing yards and 552 total yards.  You can't blame the offense because the linebackers didn't play.  Yes we got creamed by Miami that year but anyone would have.  A lot of people think they were as good as '95 Nebraska.

I didn't realize that you were trying to define it. I wasn't expecting a definition of an offense by what it does to the defense.

 

We haven't had a extremely dominant o-line since 97. We've had some mediocre ones and that's about it IMO.

 

I would like to meet these people that think that team was as good as the 95 team.

Well how would you define it? Contrary to what some people in here believe, there are different ways to run the ball. People say things like 'look Benard and Utah Husker, they ran the ball 40 times, are you happy now? That attitude is insulting to people with my point of view because it assumes that as long as you run the ball, I'm happy. Like I look at the box score and see 40 rushes and that's all I care about. That's silly. I could not care less if they run or pass, I just want them to be physical.

Just for kicks:

1999 - #4 in rushing

2000 - #1 in rushing

2001 - #1 in rushing

2002 - #4 in rushing

2003 - #7 in rushing

[Utah_Husker]

I think when the QB became the first option in the running game things changed.

I agree. But why did that happen? #1, Eric Crouch was the best player in college football. #2, we had a drought of decent backs who could carry the load after Alexander and Buckhaulter left. Which is why I wanted them to run Dailey at qb and lord at rb last year. But that's off topic. It's frustrating that now that we found a game breaker again in Ross at the end of last year, we never got to see if that would bring back the offense again.

[DaveH]

I thought I did in that last post.  It's pounding the defense.  Punishing them instead of absorbing punishment.  Running draws out of WCO formations does not do that.  That punishes the running back without really hurting the defense at all.  And when you say we haven't done that for many years, I don't know what you're talking about.  These last two years weren't outstanding, but up through 2001, I think we were pretty consistent at wearing out defenses.  Even in the Colorado blowout, we scored 36 points, rolled up 354 rusing yards and 552 total yards.  You can't blame the offense because the linebackers didn't play.  Yes we got creamed by Miami that year but anyone would have.  A lot of people think they were as good as '95 Nebraska.

I didn't realize that you were trying to define it. I wasn't expecting a definition of an offense by what it does to the defense.

 

We haven't had a extremely dominant o-line since 97. We've had some mediocre ones and that's about it IMO.

 

I would like to meet these people that think that team was as good as the 95 team.

Well how would you define it? Contrary to what some people in here believe, there are different ways to run the ball. People say things like 'look Benard and Utah Husker, they ran the ball 40 times, are you happy now? That attitude is insulting to people with my point of view because it assumes that as long as you run the ball, I'm happy. Like I look at the box score and see 40 rushes and that's all I care about. That's silly. I could not care less if they run or pass, I just want them to be physical.

Just for kicks:

1999 - #4 in rushing

2000 - #1 in rushing

2001 - #1 in rushing

2002 - #4 in rushing

2003 - #7 in rushing

Gotcha. I can understand wanting to be physical. You have to be IMO. This is football, afterall.

[Utah_Husker]

The truth is our line and running game has went down hill since 2000. They have no longer been as dominate nor have they been able to flat out wear down opponents.

 

Rush yds/game yards/carry

2000- 349.3 6.0

2001- 314.7 5.6

2002- 268.7 5.6

2003- 235.6 4.3

 

Our hardnosed football wasn't so hard nosed the last couple of years. We have been going down hill because we don't have the dominate lineman that we use to. I find it really hard to believe that with our coaches that we had last year that we would of improved in our rushing attack this year. Changes had to be made and although we have no seen improvements this year, we have an opportunity in a new offense to make improvements during the LONG HAUL of it. It takes more than ten games to put in a whole new system and I am willing to watch and see what happens.

I you take it a little farther back, the stats tell a different story:

 

'96 291.6 ypg 5.1 ypc

'97 392.6 ypg 6.2 ypc

'98 253.8 ypg 4.8 ypc

'99 265.9 ypg 5.0 ypc

'00 349.3 ypg 6.0 ypc

'01 314.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'02 268.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'03 235.6 ypg 4.3 ypc

 

Seems pretty cylclical to me. They weren't always going to rush for 350 ypg, but they were always one of the top rushing teams in the country.

[DaveH]

The truth is our line and running game has went down hill since 2000. They have no longer been as dominate nor have they been able to flat out wear down opponents.

 

          Rush yds/game        yards/carry

2000-          349.3                    6.0

2001-          314.7                    5.6

2002-          268.7                    5.6

2003-          235.6                    4.3

 

Our hardnosed football wasn't so hard nosed the last couple of years. We have been going down hill because we don't have the dominate lineman that we use to. I find it really hard to believe that with our coaches that we had last year that we would of improved in our rushing attack this year. Changes had to be made and although we have no seen improvements this year, we have an opportunity in a new offense to make improvements during the LONG HAUL of it. It takes more than ten games to put in a whole new system and I am willing to watch and see what happens.

I you take it a little farther back, the stats tell a different story:

 

'96 291.6 ypg 5.1 ypc

'97 392.6 ypg 6.2 ypc

'98 253.8 ypg 4.8 ypc

'99 265.9 ypg 5.0 ypc

'00 349.3 ypg 6.0 ypc

'01 314.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'02 268.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'03 235.6 ypg 4.3 ypc

 

Seems pretty cylclical to me. They weren't always going to rush for 350 ypg, but they were always one of the top rushing teams in the country.

Does being the top rushing team in the country net you a chance at a title every year? It's pretty easy to rack up rushing numbers when, really, that's all you do.

[DJR313]

I think when the QB became the first option in the running game things changed.

I agree. But why did that happen? #1, Eric Crouch was the best player in college football. #2, we had a drought of decent backs who could carry the load after Alexander and Buckhaulter left. Which is why I wanted them to run Dailey at qb and lord at rb last year. But that's off topic. It's frustrating that now that we found a game breaker again in Ross at the end of last year, we never got to see if that would bring back the offense again.

I understand now where you are going with your definition. I agree that the Nebraska downhill "beat the crap out of em for 3 quarters then run all over em in the 4th" has been gone for awhile though. I admit it was fun to watch Nebraska's superior conditioning and athletic ability of the hogs up front take over a game. Unfortunately, the line is not dominant anymore and not nearly as athletic as, say 4 years ago and further back. Nebraska doesn't have the o-line, and from what we saw on saturday, Cory Ross can't carry a load like that. Sorry for the misunderstanding Utah.

[Utah_Husker]

'96 291.6 ypg 5.1 ypc

'97 392.6 ypg 6.2 ypc

'98 253.8 ypg 4.8 ypc

'99 265.9 ypg 5.0 ypc

'00 349.3 ypg 6.0 ypc

'01 314.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'02 268.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'03 235.6 ypg 4.3 ypc

 

Seems pretty cylclical to me. They weren't always going to rush for 350 ypg, but they were always one of the top rushing teams in the country.

Does being the top rushing team in the country net you a chance at a title every year? It's pretty easy to rack up rushing numbers when, really, that's all you do.

Out of Solich's 6 years, they were competing for the national title for most of the year in 3 of them ('99-01).

[Pedro Guerrero]

'96 291.6 ypg 5.1 ypc

'97 392.6 ypg 6.2 ypc

'98 253.8 ypg 4.8 ypc

'99 265.9 ypg 5.0 ypc

'00 349.3 ypg 6.0 ypc

'01 314.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'02 268.7 ypg 5.6 ypc

'03 235.6 ypg 4.3 ypc

 

Seems pretty cylclical to me. They weren't always going to rush for 350 ypg, but they were always one of the top rushing teams in the country.

Does being the top rushing team in the country net you a chance at a title every year? It's pretty easy to rack up rushing numbers when, really, that's all you do.

Out of Solich's 6 years, they were competing for the national title for most of the year in 3 of them ('99-01).

When we played for the title in 01 we say first hand that we couldn't run the same old option against the best teams. How many times did Crouch break free to be caught by a LB or DB? With no running back it's hard to be physical. We also had speed to go along with the strength.

[Benard]

The truth is our line and running game has went down hill since 2000. They have no longer been as dominate nor have they been able to flat out wear down opponents.

 

Rush yds/game yards/carry

2000- 349.3 6.0

2001- 314.7 5.6

2002- 268.7 5.6

2003- 235.6 4.3

 

Our hardnosed football wasn't so hard nosed the last couple of years. We have been going down hill because we don't have the dominate lineman that we use to. I find it really hard to believe that with our coaches that we had last year that we would of improved in our rushing attack this year. Changes had to be made and although we have no seen improvements this year, we have an opportunity in a new offense to make improvements during the LONG HAUL of it. It takes more than ten games to put in a whole new system and I am willing to watch and see what happens.

Hell yes coaches we had last year were leading to imrovements. They were great coaches and pretty darn good recruiters themselves.

[Utah_Husker]

I understand now where you are going with your definition. I agree that the Nebraska downhill "beat the crap out of em for 3 quarters then run all over em in the 4th" has been gone for awhile though. I admit it was fun to watch Nebraska's superior conditioning and athletic ability of the hogs up front take over a game. Unfortunately, the line is not dominant anymore and not nearly as athletic as, say 4 years ago and further back. Nebraska doesn't have the o-line, and from what we saw on saturday, Cory Ross can't carry a load like that. Sorry for the misunderstanding Utah.

I don't know if for sure they don't have the O-Line to do it. Of course they're not as good as 4 years ago, but I think they're still good. In the power option, the O-Line and Backs feed off of each other. You need a powerful line and explosive qb and running backs. Like I said before, I don't feel like we've had the explosive back the past two years. The offensive line doesn't get a chance to show their stuff if the defense can just key on the qb. So its disappointing to me that we didn't get to see what Ross and Dailey could really do.

As far as Ross not being able to carry the load...he carried 30 times against OU. Not many backs can carry it that much. The beauty of the option when you have playmakers at RB and QB is that the primary RB shouldn't have to carry it that much. Usually the QB will get about 20 carries, the primary RB will get about 20-25, and the secondary RB will chip in with about 10.

[Pedro Guerrero]

I understand now where you are going with your definition.  I agree that the Nebraska downhill "beat the crap out of em for 3 quarters then run all over em in the 4th"  has been gone for awhile though.  I admit it was fun to watch Nebraska's superior conditioning and athletic ability of the hogs up front take over a game.  Unfortunately, the line is not dominant anymore and not nearly as athletic as, say 4 years ago and further back.  Nebraska doesn't have the o-line, and from what we saw on saturday, Cory Ross can't carry a load like that.  Sorry for the misunderstanding Utah.

I don't know if for sure they don't have the O-Line to do it. Of course they're not as good as 4 years ago, but I think they're still good. In the power option, the O-Line and Backs feed off of each other. You need a powerful line and explosive qb and running backs. Like I said before, I don't feel like we've had the explosive back the past two years. The offensive line doesn't get a chance to show their stuff if the defense can just key on the qb. So its disappointing to me that we didn't get to see what Ross and Dailey could really do.

As far as Ross not being able to carry the load...he carried 30 times against OU. Not many backs can carry it that much. The beauty of the option when you have playmakers at RB and QB is that the primary RB shouldn't have to carry it that much. Usually the QB will get about 20 carries, the primary RB will get about 20-25, and the secondary RB will chip in with about 10.

Unless it's Jammal Lord or Steve Taylor then they get about 30 carries and the backs get around 10.

[Utah_Husker]

Unless it's Jammal Lord or Steve Taylor then they get about 30 carries and the backs get around 10.

It's funny but it's true. Not that Taylor was all that great, but who did he have running with him? Keith Jones. Dahran Diedrick was Lords sidekick in 2002 followed by Davis and Horne. That's why we were easily defended by the best teams when we had Taylor and Lord.

[gamecocks]

The truth is our line and running game has went down hill since 2000. They have no longer been as dominate nor have they been able to flat out wear down opponents.

 

          Rush yds/game        yards/carry

2000-          349.3                    6.0

2001-          314.7                    5.6

2002-          268.7                    5.6

2003-          235.6                    4.3

 

Our hardnosed football wasn't so hard nosed the last couple of years. We have been going down hill because we don't have the dominate lineman that we use to. I find it really hard to believe that with our coaches that we had last year that we would of improved in our rushing attack this year. Changes had to be made and although we have no seen improvements this year, we have an opportunity in a new offense to make improvements during the LONG HAUL of it. It takes more than ten games to put in a whole new system and I am willing to watch and see what happens.

Hell yes coaches we had last year were leading to imrovements. They were great coaches and pretty darn good recruiters themselves.

We had a good defense last year that made the difference in the record. Our offense was getting worse because we no longer had the athletes on the line that were physical and we sure as hell didn't have the depth that we need to be a physical team. Our passing game sucked ass and if you think that Dailey was going to do good this year, then wow, you haven't seen a single game yet. And by the way, who was going Solich bringing in this year that was all that great.