54 plays for 1 yard or less

[knapplc]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

[knapplc]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Pretty much that. I'd like to see consistent output from our offense, rather than biting my nails every time they come up wondering if we'll go 3 and out. Being consistent doesn't mean losing the big play ability. If we get second level blocking, our backs will still bust a big gain, and if Martinez gets in the open, he'll do the same. But the ability to put a consistent drive together multiple times in a game would be nice.

 

This is a legit concern, but this isn't the answer to the statement that "we rely too much on the big play." We're talking about two different things here.

 

On a lightning strike play from 80 yards out, we've executed well and the play worked as designed. As you say, Ebyl, once we get Taylor or Ameer or Rex in open space, they're off to the races and they often score (at least, Ameer looks like he has the ability, and we know Taylor and Rex can). Same thing goes for Turner, Enunwa, Kenny Bell, etc.

 

What we're talking about in the two posts I quoted is a lack of execution on some plays. That has nothing to do with what we do or don't rely on, it just means that far too often we don't execute. We miss blocking assignments or we don't have any clue who to block, or we penalize ourselves out of down-and-distance, or any number of things. This has been a systemic problem with our offense for a LONG time.

 

I definitely agree that we need to be consistent, but if that consistency equates to three-play, 80-yard scoring drives three drives in a row, that's not a bad thing, is it?

[EbylHusker]

No, it's not a bad thing. I think people saying we rely too much on the big play are just saying getting stuffed a lot, but breaking enough big plays to win, isn't a good thing (even if we win). And I doubt anyone disagrees with that. Like you said, consistency is good and doesn't mean we won't break big plays. I think a lot of people are actually saying the same thing, just from two totally different angles.

[junior4949]

I'd venture to guess that if we had the ability to sustain drives that it would actually open up more big plays. Take the 94' NC game against Miami for instance. We just kept plugging away and plugging away until Miami's D got tired. The big plays were opened up on fullback traps of all things. If our offense had the ability to sustain drives, our defense would stay a lot fresher. Looking back at the 2009 season, it is quite amazing that we didn't get blasted due to the amount of time the D was actually on the field.

[3rd and long]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

 

 

Yes a score is a score is a score. But again, that's too simplistic. Every TD is six point on the board, but can have a vastly different effect on the game. I would rather have us use a 10 play eight minute drive for a TD, which gives our defense time to rest and adjust, and then possibly come back out and get a three-and out, then a two play, one minute drive for the same six points. After which our D, which just came off the field, heads right back out. Yes, both are worth six points. But which one just benefited our team more?

Sorry to post in here again, saying the same thing.

 

Damn, I'm so computer challenged, why all of a sudden can I not quote and reply correctly?

[NUpolo8]

If we can not sustain drives against Wisconsin, our defense will be done by the end of the third quarter. Exhausted, beaten to death. I could care less about his passing ability or lack of, I am concerned that we really do not seem to be able to run the ball against a better than average defense, what will happen against a top flight, physical, and deep defense. I do not see our WR's finding themselves wide open against many of the B1G's defenses.

 

Also throwing those slow developing deep pass plays opens up Martinez to violent sacks with a less than stellar oline.

 

We need to be able to run the ball in the B1G is my point. 40 plus yard plays are not going to be the regular is my guess.

 

Again I hope I am wrong, but I am sick of the Kool Aid. We have heard the same things over and over every pre season, about how much they have improved. I have yet to see that stated improvement. Or at least enough improvement to make this offense a force.

 

 

Don't worry, you're wrong.

[knapplc]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

 

 

Yes a score is a score is a score. But again, that's too simplistic. Every TD is six point on the board, but can have a vastly different effect on the game. I would rather have us use a 10 play eight minute drive for a TD, which gives our defense time to rest and adjust, and then possibly come back out and get a three-and out, then a two play, one minute drive for the same six points. After which our D, which just came off the field, heads right back out. Yes, both are worth six points. But which one just benefited our team more?

Sorry to post in here again, saying the same thing.

 

Damn, I'm so computer challenged, why all of a sudden can I not quote and reply correctly?

Totally see where you're coming from, and you're not wrong. Thing is, neither of us are really wrong. It's not like a TD is ever a bad thing. Abdullah ran a kick back and the defense had to go right back out on the field and nobody was mad at him, were they?

 

But I get the rest/scheme thing. Blake Lawrence was on the radio as I was driving home talking about that, how you're not just catching your breath, you're drawing up plans and scheming for what the offense is doing, and of course that's helpful.

 

But again, this has more to do with the offense not executing than it has to do with scoring too fast, or "relying on the big play." Drives aren't sustained because blocks aren't made, or coverages aren't read, or penalties are made, or any number of reasons. That's the problem, not the fact that Taylor can score from anywhere on the field, or that Bell can, or Turner, or whomever.

[3rd and long]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

 

 

Yes a score is a score is a score. But again, that's too simplistic. Every TD is six point on the board, but can have a vastly different effect on the game. I would rather have us use a 10 play eight minute drive for a TD, which gives our defense time to rest and adjust, and then possibly come back out and get a three-and out, then a two play, one minute drive for the same six points. After which our D, which just came off the field, heads right back out. Yes, both are worth six points. But which one just benefited our team more?

Sorry to post in here again, saying the same thing.

 

Damn, I'm so computer challenged, why all of a sudden can I not quote and reply correctly?

Totally see where you're coming from, and you're not wrong. Thing is, neither of us are really wrong. It's not like a TD is ever a bad thing. Abdullah ran a kick back and the defense had to go right back out on the field and nobody was mad at him, were they?

 

But I get the rest/scheme thing. Blake Lawrence was on the radio as I was driving home talking about that, how you're not just catching your breath, you're drawing up plans and scheming for what the offense is doing, and of course that's helpful.

 

But again, this has more to do with the offense not executing than it has to do with scoring too fast, or "relying on the big play." Drives aren't sustained because blocks aren't made, or coverages aren't read, or penalties are made, or any number of reasons. That's the problem, not the fact that Taylor can score from anywhere on the field, or that Bell can, or Turner, or whomever.

 

Good post, and I agree. I think we should let it fade away and both be right! And more importantly, see if I can figure out how to reply (my daughter will be home from college tomorrow, maybe she can help me )

Oh, and by the way, I was mad at Abdullah, I flipped away and he ran it back too fast, I missed it. But that's ok, because Bo's facial expression has he looked up was priceless.

[knapplc]

Just make sure the quote tag {/quote} is above what you want to type when responding.

[NUpolo8]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

 

 

Yes a score is a score is a score. But again, that's too simplistic. Every TD is six point on the board, but can have a vastly different effect on the game. I would rather have us use a 10 play eight minute drive for a TD, which gives our defense time to rest and adjust, and then possibly come back out and get a three-and out, then a two play, one minute drive for the same six points. After which our D, which just came off the field, heads right back out. Yes, both are worth six points. But which one just benefited our team more?

Sorry to post in here again, saying the same thing.

 

Damn, I'm so computer challenged, why all of a sudden can I not quote and reply correctly?

Totally see where you're coming from, and you're not wrong. Thing is, neither of us are really wrong. It's not like a TD is ever a bad thing. Abdullah ran a kick back and the defense had to go right back out on the field and nobody was mad at him, were they?

 

But I get the rest/scheme thing. Blake Lawrence was on the radio as I was driving home talking about that, how you're not just catching your breath, you're drawing up plans and scheming for what the offense is doing, and of course that's helpful.

 

But again, this has more to do with the offense not executing than it has to do with scoring too fast, or "relying on the big play." Drives aren't sustained because blocks aren't made, or coverages aren't read, or penalties are made, or any number of reasons. That's the problem, not the fact that Taylor can score from anywhere on the field, or that Bell can, or Turner, or whomever.

 

 

I would also like to point out that, while the methodical part of the offense is still fluid, NU has a legit, undeniable home threat in several places that other teams have to account for. I would say its been a solid ten years since they could boast about that (Crouch) and even longer since they had more than one (Crouch/Newcombe, Frost/Green/Newcombe)

 

Most offenses rearely have both, and the methodical one is easy to develop, finding the explosive parts is a roll of the dice. Its not as far away as a lot of people seem to think.

[bshirt]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

 

 

Yes a score is a score is a score. But again, that's too simplistic. Every TD is six point on the board, but can have a vastly different effect on the game. I would rather have us use a 10 play eight minute drive for a TD, which gives our defense time to rest and adjust, and then possibly come back out and get a three-and out, then a two play, one minute drive for the same six points. After which our D, which just came off the field, heads right back out. Yes, both are worth six points. But which one just benefited our team more?

Sorry to post in here again, saying the same thing.

 

Damn, I'm so computer challenged, why all of a sudden can I not quote and reply correctly?

Totally see where you're coming from, and you're not wrong. Thing is, neither of us are really wrong. It's not like a TD is ever a bad thing. Abdullah ran a kick back and the defense had to go right back out on the field and nobody was mad at him, were they?

 

But I get the rest/scheme thing. Blake Lawrence was on the radio as I was driving home talking about that, how you're not just catching your breath, you're drawing up plans and scheming for what the offense is doing, and of course that's helpful.

 

But again, this has more to do with the offense not executing than it has to do with scoring too fast, or "relying on the big play." Drives aren't sustained because blocks aren't made, or coverages aren't read, or penalties are made, or any number of reasons. That's the problem, not the fact that Taylor can score from anywhere on the field, or that Bell can, or Turner, or whomever.

 

 

I would also like to point out that, while the methodical part of the offense is still fluid, NU has a legit, undeniable home threat in several places that other teams have to account for. I would say its been a solid ten years since they could boast about that (Crouch) and even longer since they had more than one (Crouch/Newcombe, Frost/Green/Newcombe)

 

Most offenses rearely have both, and the methodical one is easy to develop, finding the explosive parts is a roll of the dice. Its not as far away as a lot of people seem to think.

 

 

Very, very, very good point. Difference makers are money and we're damn lucky to have them (Tmart, Turner, Reed, etc).

[Hercules]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

We're not able to score every single time we touch the ball, though. That's the whole point. If we scored on the first play of every drive, that'd be perfectly fine with everyone on this board, but we both know that's impossible. The problem is that right now, if we don't get a big play, we usually go 3 and out, and that's not good. And the reason it is a somewhat troubling sign is because defenses with speed like Ohio State are not going to give up big plays as easily as Fresno State. What then?

 

The big plays are great. Let's have more of them. But at some point a defense may force us to operate differently, and right now it's perfectly reasonable to question whether our offense will be up to that task.

[bshirt]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

We're not able to score every single time we touch the ball, though. That's the whole point. If we scored on the first play of every drive, that'd be perfectly fine with everyone on this board, but we both know that's impossible. The problem is that right now, if we don't get a big play, we usually go 3 and out, and that's not good. And the reason it is a somewhat troubling sign is because defenses with speed like Ohio State are not going to give up big plays as easily as Fresno State. What then?

 

The big plays are great. Let's have more of them. But at some point a defense may force us to operate differently, and right now it's perfectly reasonable to question whether our offense will be up to that task.

 

That's perfectly true enough and I fully agree but until we put wrs in who actually catch the ball & our Oline gets a push on running plays...well.....

 

The upside is surely Bo will insist on Turner/Bell/etc being on the field. That helps. A lot. But to consistently move the chains in a methodical way one way or another we got to have a push from the Oline on running plays. Tmart, even with good wrs probably can't hack moving the team 70 or so yds with ten or so 5 yd passes.

 

Somehow we gotta be able to run the ball.

[knapplc]

We're not able to score every single time we touch the ball, though. That's the whole point. If we scored on the first play of every drive, that'd be perfectly fine with everyone on this board, but we both know that's impossible. The problem is that right now, if we don't get a big play, we usually go 3 and out, and that's not good. And the reason it is a somewhat troubling sign is because defenses with speed like Ohio State are not going to give up big plays as easily as Fresno State. What then?

 

The big plays are great. Let's have more of them. But at some point a defense may force us to operate differently, and right now it's perfectly reasonable to question whether our offense will be up to that task.

 

I pretty much addressed this in this post.

 

Totally with you on the worry about execution. But that's not what we've been talking about - we've been talking about "relying on the big play," and executing on long drives isn't the caveat to that concern. Those are two very different animals.

[Hunter94]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

 

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing.

 

We're not able to score every single time we touch the ball, though. That's the whole point. If we scored on the first play of every drive, that'd be perfectly fine with everyone on this board, but we both know that's impossible. The problem is that right now, if we don't get a big play, we usually go 3 and out, and that's not good. And the reason it is a somewhat troubling sign is because defenses with speed like Ohio State are not going to give up big plays as easily as Fresno State. What then?

 

The big plays are great. Let's have more of them. But at some point a defense may force us to operate differently, and right now it's perfectly reasonable to question whether our offense will be up to that task.

 

That's perfectly true enough and I fully agree but until we put wrs in who actually catch the ball & our Oline gets a push on running plays...well.....

 

The upside is surely Bo will insist on Turner/Bell/etc being on the field. That helps. A lot. But to consistently move the chains in a methodical way one way or another we got to have a push from the Oline on running plays. Tmart, even with good wrs probably can't hack moving the team 70 or so yds with ten or so 5 yd passes.

 

Somehow we gotta be able to run the ball.

 

 

we are a run first, option team, teams are gonna stack the box and try to get us in 3rd and long, where we don't fare very well. it's a simple strategy by the defense, until we can show pass on first down and actually execute it...otherwise, except for a big play, 3 and out is going to be more common than we would like...also, it doesn't look like TM can perform in a moving pocket, like Carr...that hurts us too.