MCAT800 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Hell in the last 6 years how many times have we heard this line of crap. Not once under BC or Wats have they truly tried to consistently establish the run. And with the O-lines we have had I guess I cant blame. Quote Link to comment
WCHusker Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 When your O-line can't block, your QB can't be relied upon to throw accurately and your receivers have hands like bricks, I say it's a damn good idea!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Hell in the last 6 years how many times have we heard this line of crap. Not once under BC or Wats have they truly tried to consistently establish the run. And with the O-lines we have had I guess I cant blame. Ah, those "Pound the Rock" campaigns and 4-headed RB monsters. It was just a cover. So opposing defenses wouldn't expect it coming. Also, the reason we didn't run much this last game, couldn't possibly be due to Helu's recovering from injury and the lack of viable options behind him? Quote Link to comment
MCAT800 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Hell in the last 6 years how many times have we heard this line of crap. Not once under BC or Wats have they truly tried to consistently establish the run. And with the O-lines we have had I guess I cant blame. Ah, those "Pound the Rock" campaigns and 4-headed RB monsters. It was just a cover. So opposing defenses wouldn't expect it coming. Also, the reason we didn't run much this last game, couldn't possibly be due to Helu's recovering from injury and the lack of viable options behind him? I'll give you that one but what about oh lets say the previous 50 games??? What was the excuse then?? Quote Link to comment
tmfr15 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 It is interesting that Hickman is talking about the run game. And that might be just talk. But consider this...Wats and the CU offense talked a lot about running the ball right at NU prior to the 2001 game. Not many offenses did that to us back then, so we thought it was a bluff. Well, they did it, and you saw the results. I was hoping to see some elements of that counter game before now, but I'll be glad to see it if Wats dusts it off this weekend. Quote Link to comment
Jeremy Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Course, in '01 they had tree trunks on the o-line, and a bull for a fullback, not to mention Chris Brown and Bobby Purify. Every time they ran their counter OT, it went for a long gain or TD. We don't have those kinds of players. Quote Link to comment
irafreak Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Actually Solich had a vertical attack. It was the option pass. Problem was Lord couldn't hit the wide open TE. As for running more...I'll believe it when I see it. This staff has talked up the need for a solid ground game for 2 years now and when things get hot they abandon it. I still wonder how much is Lee changing the play but that's still Watson's job. Quote Link to comment
skerinKansas Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Actually Solich had a vertical attack. It was the option pass. Problem was Lord couldn't hit the wide open TE. As for running more...I'll believe it when I see it. This staff has talked up the need for a solid ground game for 2 years now and when things get hot they abandon it. I still wonder how much is Lee changing the play but that's still Watson's job. I'll take on the bolded part. After watcing all I can, I think Zac is taking the "Sam Keller" approach to the offense. Watson calls down the play, which gets to Zac in the huddle. Zac calls 2 plays (alot) and the huddle breaks. Zac makes his read at the line, and has, very often, checked to a new play. Defense shifts late, Oline cant make adjustments, and we get a run stuffed, or Zac gets pressured so quick he can't go through his progressions. To the casual observer, the oline looks terrible, and Zac is scared, but in reality, he's making too many checks for his own good. To say "we need to simplify the offense" is much to broad. Zac needs to have more confidence in the guys around him to make a play. Seeing the D line up will give a QB a decent look at what could be open. Whether run or pass was called in, run it. If we can't make the plays go, then we need to change it from Wats, not Zac. He's taking too much of the responsiblity on himself, like Keller. Yet we saw Joe last year not chekc near as much. He had the play, saw the defense. He knew he might need to create one extra second on his own, but that meant Nate or Todd would come open. Zac isn't able to move in the pocket well enough to give the WR's enough time to get open, that's why we see helu as our leading receiver (as Lucky was with Keller). A QB with more confidence in his and his teammates own ability to run the play called, along with the QB's abilty to "make a play" would get this offense right back where it was last year, and maybe better. Whether it's Zac or Cody shouldn't matter. the QB who executes this week in practice (with no green jersey's, i love that idea) will be on the field Saturday! Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just to clarify for some people who think we "abandon" the running game, that is not the case. Against FAU - Rush: 35 Pass: 32 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 259 Against ASU - Rush: 28 Pass: 41 / Total Net Rushing YArds: 136 Against VT - Rush: 36 Pass: 30 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 207 Against ULL - Rush: 34 Pass: 26 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 133 Against MU - Rush: 33 Pass: 33 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 105 Against TT - Rush: 30 Pass: 38 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 70 I think what this showcases is not a lack of running the football, nor an "abandonment", but just terrible execution. We rush 35 times for 259 yards against FAU, but in 34 attempts only manage 133 against ULL? Going by these numbers, it's apparent that it's not that Watson doesn't want to run the football, he just doesn't know how to do it the right way. Quote Link to comment
junior4949 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just to clarify for some people who think we "abandon" the running game, that is not the case. Against FAU - Rush: 35 Pass: 32 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 259 Against ASU - Rush: 28 Pass: 41 / Total Net Rushing YArds: 136 Against VT - Rush: 36 Pass: 30 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 207 Against ULL - Rush: 34 Pass: 26 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 133 Against MU - Rush: 33 Pass: 33 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 105 Against TT - Rush: 30 Pass: 38 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 70 I think what this showcases is not a lack of running the football, nor an "abandonment", but just terrible execution. We rush 35 times for 259 yards against FAU, but in 34 attempts only manage 133 against ULL? Going by these numbers, it's apparent that it's not that Watson doesn't want to run the football, he just doesn't know how to do it the right way. Call me crazy, but I believe the best D we've faced so far this year was VT. We ran the ball 30 times for 207 yards. I'm wondering if we're attacking the D when running the ball in the right formations and schemes. If our OL was able to handle the most talented and gifted D we've faced, why can't they handle TT? Quote Link to comment
Enhance Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just to clarify for some people who think we "abandon" the running game, that is not the case. Against FAU - Rush: 35 Pass: 32 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 259 Against ASU - Rush: 28 Pass: 41 / Total Net Rushing YArds: 136 Against VT - Rush: 36 Pass: 30 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 207 Against ULL - Rush: 34 Pass: 26 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 133 Against MU - Rush: 33 Pass: 33 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 105 Against TT - Rush: 30 Pass: 38 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 70 I think what this showcases is not a lack of running the football, nor an "abandonment", but just terrible execution. We rush 35 times for 259 yards against FAU, but in 34 attempts only manage 133 against ULL? Going by these numbers, it's apparent that it's not that Watson doesn't want to run the football, he just doesn't know how to do it the right way. Call me crazy, but I believe the best D we've faced so far this year was VT. We ran the ball 30 times for 207 yards. I'm wondering if we're attacking the D when running the ball in the right formations and schemes. If our OL was able to handle the most talented and gifted D we've faced, why can't they handle TT? See that is the interesting thing, because VT is definitely the best D we have faced. How do we manage nearly 150 more yards rushing on 6 more attempts against VT, as compared to TT? TT's defense is good. Not very good, not great, but good. It shouldn't have been an issue running the football. It comes down to the play calling and execution. It's working in some games, and in others it looks just horrible. Quote Link to comment
bshirt Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just to clarify for some people who think we "abandon" the running game, that is not the case. Against FAU - Rush: 35 Pass: 32 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 259 Against ASU - Rush: 28 Pass: 41 / Total Net Rushing YArds: 136 Against VT - Rush: 36 Pass: 30 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 207 Against ULL - Rush: 34 Pass: 26 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 133 Against MU - Rush: 33 Pass: 33 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 105 Against TT - Rush: 30 Pass: 38 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 70 I think what this showcases is not a lack of running the football, nor an "abandonment", but just terrible execution. We rush 35 times for 259 yards against FAU, but in 34 attempts only manage 133 against ULL? Going by these numbers, it's apparent that it's not that Watson doesn't want to run the football, he just doesn't know how to do it the right way. Call me crazy, but I believe the best D we've faced so far this year was VT. We ran the ball 30 times for 207 yards. I'm wondering if we're attacking the D when running the ball in the right formations and schemes. If our OL was able to handle the most talented and gifted D we've faced, why can't they handle TT? Oh boy, that's a good question. We can pound the rock vs VT but not TT??? Wow....talk about not making any sense whatsoever...... I admit that I just don't get it. Quote Link to comment
admo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just to clarify for some people who think we "abandon" the running game, that is not the case. Against FAU - Rush: 35 Pass: 32 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 259 Against ASU - Rush: 28 Pass: 41 / Total Net Rushing YArds: 136 Against VT - Rush: 36 Pass: 30 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 207 Against ULL - Rush: 34 Pass: 26 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 133 Against MU - Rush: 33 Pass: 33 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 105 Against TT - Rush: 30 Pass: 38 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 70 I think what this showcases is not a lack of running the football, nor an "abandonment", but just terrible execution. We rush 35 times for 259 yards against FAU, but in 34 attempts only manage 133 against ULL? Going by these numbers, it's apparent that it's not that Watson doesn't want to run the football, he just doesn't know how to do it the right way. Call me crazy, but I believe the best D we've faced so far this year was VT. We ran the ball 30 times for 207 yards. I'm wondering if we're attacking the D when running the ball in the right formations and schemes. If our OL was able to handle the most talented and gifted D we've faced, why can't they handle TT? Because most teams have played 5 games. They are better now and gelling more then they were in Week 1, 2 or 3. And the game against VT was mostly all Helu. He broke tackles at the line of scrimmage. He busted outside. He ran through and around and over guys. It wasnt the result of a dominating offensive line. Quote Link to comment
junior4949 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The answer seems quite simple. Either we were trying to run it out of the wrong sets, or the team just played flat and wasn't emotionally ready to play. Quote Link to comment
admo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Just to clarify for some people who think we "abandon" the running game, that is not the case. Against FAU - Rush: 35 Pass: 32 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 259 Against ASU - Rush: 28 Pass: 41 / Total Net Rushing YArds: 136 Against VT - Rush: 36 Pass: 30 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 207 Against ULL - Rush: 34 Pass: 26 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 133 Against MU - Rush: 33 Pass: 33 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 105 Against TT - Rush: 30 Pass: 38 / Total Net Rushing Yards: 70 I think what this showcases is not a lack of running the football, nor an "abandonment", but just terrible execution. We rush 35 times for 259 yards against FAU, but in 34 attempts only manage 133 against ULL? Going by these numbers, it's apparent that it's not that Watson doesn't want to run the football, he just doesn't know how to do it the right way. Call me crazy, but I believe the best D we've faced so far this year was VT. We ran the ball 30 times for 207 yards. I'm wondering if we're attacking the D when running the ball in the right formations and schemes. If our OL was able to handle the most talented and gifted D we've faced, why can't they handle TT? See that is the interesting thing, because VT is definitely the best D we have faced. How do we manage nearly 150 more yards rushing on 6 more attempts against VT, as compared to TT? TT's defense is good. Not very good, not great, but good. It shouldn't have been an issue running the football. It comes down to the play calling and execution. It's working in some games, and in others it looks just horrible. TTech's defensive line was pretty darn good, and a lot better than our offensive line. They didnt even load up the box. Helu was noticeably banged up and not himself again, no Burkhead to carry the load, and no faith in the "committee backup RBs". It makes you wonder, well definately me, how in the world do they think they can just start running the ball with success? When its painfully obvious that it hasnt happened consistently all season. I just dont get it when I hear "We're gonna run the ball..." when they've been trying all season. I just think all the signs indicate there is no earthly way. Not unless this O-line improves greatly & the passing game keeps the defense honest. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.