We all love the run game!

[tmfr15]

I love the run game and believe it to be the basis for most successful offenses. However, there is always going to be debate, not on how much is too much...say 90 percent, and how much is to little, like 10 percent, but what the good number is.... I am feeling between 55 and 60 percent run. Or do you break it down by down or distance? Thoughts?

[knapplc]

57.38% run. That will leave enough passing to make play-action a threat, but still be more run-centric.

[kchusker_chris]

57.38% run. That will leave enough passing to make play-action a threat, but still be more run-centric.

That's around the number Watson went with too.

 

4th quarter, 2 minutes left, trailing by 4, Huskers in the red-zone, 3rd and short. Plenty of time, no hurry. Watson check's the sheet. Uses his calculator watch. So far, 60.41% running. Too many. Can't be that predictable. Pass. Incomplete. Now 4th and short. Recalculate. 59.18 running%. We've been too predictable! Watson rubs his temples...stares down the opposing team's DC with his binoculars. They know we're going to run. Damnit I've been too predictable! Watson makes his chess move, calls down the play............Pass. Incomplete. Game Over.

 

...SOB...should have gone 59.63% running.

[The Dude]

57.38% run. That will leave enough passing to make play-action a threat, but still be more run-centric.

That's around the number Watson went with too.

 

4th quarter, 2 minutes left, trailing by 4, Huskers in the red-zone, 3rd and short. Plenty of time, no hurry. Watson check's the sheet. Uses his calculator watch. So far, 60.41% running. Too many. Can't be that predictable. Pass. Incomplete. Now 4th and short. Recalculate. 59.18 running%. We've been too predictable! Watson rubs his temples...stares down the opposing team's DC with his binoculars. They know we're going to run. Damnit I've been too predictable! Watson makes his chess move, calls down the play............Pass. Incomplete. Game Over.

 

...SOB...should have gone 59.63% running.

El oh el.

[zoogs]

Run/Pass Ratios are the single most overrated statistic in all of football. I can't exaggerate how meaningless that statistic is, nor how imprecise it is in today's college game.

 

We track it only to abide by the rule that each play can only have 1 forward pass. It's usefulness in statistics and tendencies is very, very low.

 

Now, if you want to track how many times Team A threw a flanker screen out of a Trips set on the short side of the field, that's meaningful. The number of times a team was credited with a forward pass is not. It doesn't tell me how to defend that team. Was it a 3 yard RB screen? A 7 step drop? A draw play?

 

I think fans today are so much better educated about the game than they were in the past, but the media and the popular opinion on this stat is such a huge tether holding it back from going further.

 

Especially with that word 'balance'. Blah, such a useless and generic word. It assumes that doing something in equal proportions is somehow a desired result. There is nothing special about having a 50/50 pass run ratio. In fact, from a big play potential, it is often counterproductive........and football is a game where picking up large chunks of offense at one time is a very desirable trait.

 

Every successful offensive scheme is 'balanced'. By 'balanced' I mean the capability to present complementary looks and actions in order to derive specific results from the defense. A triple option offense is balanced via the FB dive or outside release. You're attempting to give one look to a playside DE and enticing different actions. The Zone Read is balanced via the backside DE.

 

We don't keep mainstream stats on how often the FB Dive was ran, but we track how many times the same offense threw a forward pass. The former, which is important, doesn't enter mainstream consciousness despite the fact it is infinitely more important to the success of that offense than the latter.

 

Of all the complementary actions, the pass-run relationship is just one of them and yet because it is an easily accessible statistic it is given an enormous priority. For general purposes, its pretty meaningless to know if your opponent passes the ball 45% or 52% of the time. Now, if we make it situationally specific, it becomes more important. You want to know how often on 3rd and 3 or less the opponent ran an ISO or threw an inside slant on a 3 step drop. That's meaningful data that tells me how to defend that down.

 

That's what I really want to know......how do I defend it. The problem with pass/run ratios is it turns the game into a simple dichotomy: it's either pass or run with a requisite response to defeat it. Early computer games on the sport were this way. It ignores the diversity of this game and attempts to simplify it to an erroneous degree.

 

From a thread before the 2010 season on a similar topic: http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/45343-2010-runpass-ratio-expectations/page__p__634248__fromsearch__1#entry634248

[Lil' Red]

There really isn't a certain percentage it all depends on the team and what they want to do. I'd say they'd probably need to pass enough to keep the defense honest but other than that they can run the ball as much as they want.

[Saunders]

Agree on the run pass ratio. Why is a team goes for 250ypg passing and 150ypg rushing considered balanced, and a team who rushes for 250ypg and passes for 150ypg considered 1 dimensional?

[zoogs]

You can see by the average yards per play. A good average for running? 4.5 yards per carry. A good average for a passing team? 8 yards per attempt. But despite this apparent difference in expected value, there are plenty of reasons to run or pass on different occasions.

 

Anywa, teams that wind up with similar #'s of runs and pass plays will inevitably have the scale tipped towards the passing yards.

[huskerscott]

64.37456%

 

 

I think we need to about 2/3 of our plays need to running or screen passes. Work away down field, wear the defense out. By the the 4th quarter they are done. I just hope our Oline can block for that long.

[Blaze1up]

60/40, try and keep it balanced. Success comes from the ground battle, it keeps defenses near the line to get big plays out of your passing game and gives you good clock management.

[mnhusker]

First: I want imbalance where it matters ........... on the scoreboard in our favor. I think it is rare that balance is achieve through equal strength in each part of the offense, most good teams (I think) will be very strong in one aspect of the game and serviceable in the other. So opponents need to sell out to stop the strong part of the game allowing themselves to be exploited by the serviceable part of the defense.

We saw some of that the fist part of last year but soon the run strength was weakened due to injury and the serviceable pass game (I'm being generous) was not good enough to make up for the lagging run game.

[UGAHusker]

I understand the theory of the importance of balance, but have never understood why so much stress is placed on two factors: ball control, offensive balance. If you score in less than two minutes, a la, Florida's "fun-n-gun" of the 90's (yeah, I know Nebraska friggin' smoked 'em, but they were pretty succesful during that span) and your defense is serviceable and conditioned, who cares how long you hold the ball for? Second, if you are able to average, like, 8 yards a rush like mid-90's Nebraska, why ever pass? I know that teams will load the box and then you have to pass, but in a hypothetical situation where you can win without passing or running at all, why would you ever go against what works? If some games you have to throw 50% of the time, do that; some games you throw 5% of the time, all the better. Striving for a certain balance seems good in theory, but can be awkward in practice when it's forced.

[huskerscott]

I understand the theory of the importance of balance, but have never understood why so much stress is placed on two factors: ball control, offensive balance. If you score in less than two minutes, a la, Florida's "fun-n-gun" of the 90's (yeah, I know Nebraska friggin' smoked 'em, but they were pretty succesful during that span) and your defense is serviceable and conditioned, who cares how long you hold the ball for? Second, if you are able to average, like, 8 yards a rush like mid-90's Nebraska, why ever pass? I know that teams will load the box and then you have to pass, but in a hypothetical situation where you can win without passing or running at all, why would you ever go against what works? If some games you have to throw 50% of the time, do that; some games you throw 5% of the time, all the better. Striving for a certain balance seems good in theory, but can be awkward in practice when it's forced.

Our offense I dont think can score in under 2 minutes again a pretty good defense. To me the less the defense is on the field the better. In the last 2 games our defense seemed like it was on the field forever at times. In the 2nd half they wore out and couldnt get the big stop or turnover to make a game of it.

 

So my theory is run the ball, especially considering the personal we have in place, kill the clock. But the key is long sustained drives, you can do it 3 yards,cloud of dust or the mizzou way of just throwing screens and quick slants 5 or 6 yards at a time. Otherwise the defense will be gased.

[Marf]

If we are gaining 10 yards per touch, I am happy with 100%.

 

We will run until the defense has adjusted to opening up something else. Even then, we should try to run a bit just to see if we still can. Percentage isn't up to our offense, it's up to the opposing defense...

[knapplc]

Our offense I dont think can score in under 2 minutes again a pretty good defense. To me the less the defense is on the field the better. In the last 2 games our defense seemed like it was on the field forever at times. In the 2nd half they wore out and couldnt get the big stop or turnover to make a game of it.

 

So my theory is run the ball, especially considering the personal we have in place, kill the clock. But the key is long sustained drives, you can do it 3 yards,cloud of dust or the mizzou way of just throwing screens and quick slants 5 or 6 yards at a time. Otherwise the defense will be gased.

 

Do you mean Watson's offense, our current offensive players, or the new offense Beck is putting in? I don't think we have enough info to make a solid judgment on any of those three, because Watson is gone, the guys last year were hamstrung by Watson, an injured QB and his Freshman-ness, and nobody posting here truly knows what Beck is going to run yet.

 

Even Michigan with Shoelace could score on decent defenses in under two minutes - all it takes is one missed tackle and Robinson is gone. Same goes for Martinez, and possibly Burkhead, Enunwa, Gilleylen, Reed, etc. We have playmakers who can take it to the house on a single play. It's just a matter of execution.