RUN THE BALL!!!

[whateveritis1224]

 

If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the UCLA offensive game plan much more often than the Purdue offensive game plan going forward.

 

I'd rather have the ball in our best playmakers hands and game plan around that. This year those playmakers are the WRs. All the press that was at practice on Saturday raved about all of the WRs and how impressive they looked. Newby was unimpressive, Ozigbo was steady when he played and the other RBs only have unproven talent, you would rather game plan around those guys then the proven WRs? Come on man. Also if you think the UCLA game plan will work in October and November against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa, come on man. Don't understand this resistance to having the best offense available, no matter how its done.

[suh_fan93]

 

 

If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the UCLA offensive game plan much more often than the Purdue offensive game plan going forward.

 

I'd rather have the ball in our best playmakers hands and game plan around that. This year those playmakers are the WRs. All the press that was at practice on Saturday raved about all of the WRs and how impressive they looked. Newby was unimpressive, Ozigbo was steady when he played and the other RBs only have unproven talent, you would rather game plan around those guys then the proven WRs? Come on man. Also if you think the UCLA game plan will work in October and November against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa, come on man. Don't understand this resistance to having the best offense available, no matter how its done.

 

 

I definitely agree we have good wide receivers but at the same time when Tommy and Nebraska were pressed to throw the ball a lot last season that's when things really broke down for us. You have to play to the guy who's supposed to get the ball to those receivers strengths or lackthereof also.

[BRV920]

I don't care who we are playing. Sticking with the run is key to making our passing game successful. it's much easier throwing to guys in single coverage. Just look at Armstrongs stats against UCLA. If we throw it all over the yard we are in for another long season.

[The Dude]

 

 

If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy.

 

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the UCLA offensive game plan much more often than the Purdue offensive game plan going forward.

I'd rather have the ball in our best playmakers hands and game plan around that. This year those playmakers are the WRs. All the press that was at practice on Saturday raved about all of the WRs and how impressive they looked. Newby was unimpressive, Ozigbo was steady when he played and the other RBs only have unproven talent, you would rather game plan around those guys then the proven WRs? Come on man. Also if you think the UCLA game plan will work in October and November against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa, come on man. Don't understand this resistance to having the best offense available, no matter how its done.

Oh yes, without question. Again, see the Purdue and UCLA games last season. The game plan against UCLA took the ball out of those flashy playmakers hands some, but it made us a better football team.

 

I know it seems counterintuitive that it would work out that way, but it did, and it will more often than not.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the UCLA offensive game plan much more often than the Purdue offensive game plan going forward.

I'd rather have the ball in our best playmakers hands and game plan around that. This year those playmakers are the WRs. All the press that was at practice on Saturday raved about all of the WRs and how impressive they looked. Newby was unimpressive, Ozigbo was steady when he played and the other RBs only have unproven talent, you would rather game plan around those guys then the proven WRs? Come on man. Also if you think the UCLA game plan will work in October and November against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa, come on man. Don't understand this resistance to having the best offense available, no matter how its done.

You should really read about what shifted Urban Meyer's way of thinking. It happen when he was coordinating against Nebraska while at NU and his best playmaker was a WR that he couldn't even get the ball to.

 

None of hate the forward pass or resist using the "best offense" or getting the ball to playmakers.

 

Some of us just think (a) that due to practice and skill set limitations in CFB, a team can't run a video game system of play calling where you just plug and play any plays that make sense on a chalkboard against a certain matchup, and (b) some systems are more consistent/easier to execute than others.

[HuskerExpat]

 

 

 

If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the UCLA offensive game plan much more often than the Purdue offensive game plan going forward.

I'd rather have the ball in our best playmakers hands and game plan around that. This year those playmakers are the WRs. All the press that was at practice on Saturday raved about all of the WRs and how impressive they looked. Newby was unimpressive, Ozigbo was steady when he played and the other RBs only have unproven talent, you would rather game plan around those guys then the proven WRs? Come on man. Also if you think the UCLA game plan will work in October and November against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa, come on man. Don't understand this resistance to having the best offense available, no matter how its done.

Oh yes, without question. Again, see the Purdue and UCLA games last season. The game plan against UCLA took the ball out of those flashy playmakers hands some, but it made us a better football team.

 

I know it seems counterintuitive that it would work out that way, but it did, and it will more often than not.

 

 

So it was the game plan that doomed us against Purdue? If so, I didn't realize it was the game plan that put TA on the bench and Fyfe in to give up 5 turnovers.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy.

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the UCLA offensive game plan much more often than the Purdue offensive game plan going forward.

I'd rather have the ball in our best playmakers hands and game plan around that. This year those playmakers are the WRs. All the press that was at practice on Saturday raved about all of the WRs and how impressive they looked. Newby was unimpressive, Ozigbo was steady when he played and the other RBs only have unproven talent, you would rather game plan around those guys then the proven WRs? Come on man. Also if you think the UCLA game plan will work in October and November against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa, come on man. Don't understand this resistance to having the best offense available, no matter how its done.

Oh yes, without question. Again, see the Purdue and UCLA games last season. The game plan against UCLA took the ball out of those flashy playmakers hands some, but it made us a better football team.

 

I know it seems counterintuitive that it would work out that way, but it did, and it will more often than not.

So it was the game plan that doomed us against Purdue? If so, I didn't realize it was the game plan that put TA on the bench and Fyfe in to give up 5 turnovers.

How would you describe the game plan against Purdue? What was NU trying to accomplish?

 

For most of the season, the "purpose" behind play calling from play to play, over the course of a game and from game to game was pretty hard to discern.

[The Dude]

 

 

 

 

If you would rather have the ball in the hands of our RBs than our WRs this year, then I'm going to call you crazy.

 

Call me crazy, but I'd rather see the UCLA offensive game plan much more often than the Purdue offensive game plan going forward.

I'd rather have the ball in our best playmakers hands and game plan around that. This year those playmakers are the WRs. All the press that was at practice on Saturday raved about all of the WRs and how impressive they looked. Newby was unimpressive, Ozigbo was steady when he played and the other RBs only have unproven talent, you would rather game plan around those guys then the proven WRs? Come on man. Also if you think the UCLA game plan will work in October and November against Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Iowa, come on man. Don't understand this resistance to having the best offense available, no matter how its done.

Oh yes, without question. Again, see the Purdue and UCLA games last season. The game plan against UCLA took the ball out of those flashy playmakers hands some, but it made us a better football team.

I know it seems counterintuitive that it would work out that way, but it did, and it will more often than not.

So it was the game plan that doomed us against Purdue? If so, I didn't realize it was the game plan that put TA on the bench and Fyfe in to give up 5 turnovers.

That wasn't the game plan so much as it was a direct result of the game plan.

[BRV920]

Actually Huskerexpat I would say the game plan did cost us the Purdue game. Asking a first time starter to pass the ball 40+ times isn't a good game plan. I'd put that loss 100% on the coaches and their game plan. If you go back and watch the game when we ran we were doing pretty good and the game didn't start getting out of hand til the middle of the third quarter.

[Enhance]

Actually Huskerexpat I would say the game plan did cost us the Purdue game. Asking a first time starter to pass the ball 40+ times isn't a good game plan. I'd put that loss 100% on the coaches and their game plan. If you go back and watch the game when we ran we were doing pretty good and the game didn't start getting out of hand til the middle of the third quarter.

Something to keep in perspective, though - while the playcalling was certainly questionable, Nebraska only averaged 2.9 YPC. That's pretty bad. We tried running but our lines/backs just weren't doing well. And the defense, while not getting much help from the offense that day, also looked abysmal.

 

The flip side to this, however, is commitment. While NU completed 60 percent of it's passes that day, there were four picks and 19 passes that fell incomplete. That's 19 times a play, essentially, counted for no offensive gain. In order for them to have won that game, I think they would've needed a better commitment to the run alongside a better defensive performance. It's really hard to win games when you're not running the ball well and not playing good defense.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Actually Huskerexpat I would say the game plan did cost us the Purdue game. Asking a first time starter to pass the ball 40+ times isn't a good game plan. I'd put that loss 100% on the coaches and their game plan. If you go back and watch the game when we ran we were doing pretty good and the game didn't start getting out of hand til the middle of the third quarter.

Something to keep in perspective, though - while the playcalling was certainly questionable, Nebraska only averaged 2.9 YPC. That's pretty bad. We tried running but our lines/backs just weren't doing well. And the defense, while not getting much help from the offense that day, also looked abysmal.

 

The flip side to this, however, is commitment. While NU completed 60 percent of it's passes that day, there were four picks and 19 passes that fell incomplete. That's 19 times a play, essentially, counted for no offensive gain. In order for them to have won that game, I think they would've needed a better commitment to the run alongside a better defensive performance. It's really hard to win games when you're not running the ball well and not playing good defense.

 

I'm not going to defend the offensive game plan for that game. However, the entire attitude in the program going into the game was a bigger factor than trying to throw the ball too much...in my opinion.

 

This bad attitude manifested itself in not being able to over power them in the run game and our defense was simply pathetic.

[QMany]

 

Actually Huskerexpat I would say the game plan did cost us the Purdue game. Asking a first time starter to pass the ball 40+ times isn't a good game plan. I'd put that loss 100% on the coaches and their game plan. If you go back and watch the game when we ran we were doing pretty good and the game didn't start getting out of hand til the middle of the third quarter.

Something to keep in perspective, though - while the playcalling was certainly questionable, Nebraska only averaged 2.9 YPC. That's pretty bad. We tried running but our lines/backs just weren't doing well. And the defense, while not getting much help from the offense that day, also looked abysmal.

 

The flip side to this, however, is commitment. While NU completed 60 percent of it's passes that day, there were four picks and 19 passes that fell incomplete. That's 19 times a play, essentially, counted for no offensive gain. In order for them to have won that game, I think they would've needed a better commitment to the run alongside a better defensive performance. It's really hard to win games when you're not running the ball well and not playing good defense.

I'm presuming you just looked at the box score: 29 carries for 77 carries. Do know that includes Ryker Fyfe's 7 carries for -35 yards, including his -24 yard fumble. We weren't that ineffective with the run. Newby had 10 carries for 56 yards and Cross had 8 carries for 39 yards (or 5.3 YPC between our RB).

 

We didn't seem to have much creativity in the run game either. Brandon Reilly had a 20 yard run against Purdue and didn't get it again. Against UCLA, we had 10 non-RB carries; against Purdue, 4.

[Andrew45]

I'm not sure why there's so much criticism of our offense this off-season. I thought overall, it was okay for our first year. I'm not really sure why they put so much emphasis on pass blocking with RB's, but I semi-trust that the coaches know what's going on better than I.

 

Of course we have things to work on, run and pass game. Which team doesn't? Our defense is the real problem.

 

Our best safety was a true freshman (Williams) in my opinion, and our scheme leaves corners completely on an island. Only a handful of corners in the country can consistently cover a receiver 1-1 for an entire game and not get beat. Just look at the scheme, we completely bail out to stop the run which leaves us (obviously) susceptible to the pass and the QB run. I like Kalu and Jones, I really do. But I'm not sure any team can be successful week to week whether or not they run for 200 yards a game if we can't stop an average QB from tearing our corners and DB's apart.

 

And our safety's, Gerry and Cockrell where essentially linebackers. Cockrell wasn't athletic to cover anybody with a little speed, and Gerry is a robot. He can't move laterally and cover a receiver running anything other than a go or post, he just can't. I like the guy when it comes to stopping the run, but I feel like in this system you NEED safetys who can cover receivers 1 on 1. Gerry isn't that. I realize he won't be benched, but I really think he should be for the better of the defense as a whole. Maybe move him to linebacker?

 

And with RB's, I think it's clear Wilbon is the best natural runner with the ball in his hands. I'm not sure why he didn't get any carries past the BYU game, but he should touch the ball every game. I don't care if you can't pass block, Ameer couldn't! If you carry the ball and consistently get more yardage than other backs, you should play! It's called running back, not pass blocking back. To be fair, the coaches must have some sort of insight that I don't, I sure hope they do. Ozigbo is a close second IMO, but Wilbon needs to get more carries this year. I still trust the coaches, I just have a hard time believing Wilbon is so bad at everything besides carrying the ball that it out-weighed his value and he was fourth string.

[Enhance]

 

 

Actually Huskerexpat I would say the game plan did cost us the Purdue game. Asking a first time starter to pass the ball 40+ times isn't a good game plan. I'd put that loss 100% on the coaches and their game plan. If you go back and watch the game when we ran we were doing pretty good and the game didn't start getting out of hand til the middle of the third quarter.

Something to keep in perspective, though - while the playcalling was certainly questionable, Nebraska only averaged 2.9 YPC. That's pretty bad. We tried running but our lines/backs just weren't doing well. And the defense, while not getting much help from the offense that day, also looked abysmal.

 

The flip side to this, however, is commitment. While NU completed 60 percent of it's passes that day, there were four picks and 19 passes that fell incomplete. That's 19 times a play, essentially, counted for no offensive gain. In order for them to have won that game, I think they would've needed a better commitment to the run alongside a better defensive performance. It's really hard to win games when you're not running the ball well and not playing good defense.

I'm presuming you just looked at the box score: 29 carries for 77 carries. Do know that includes Ryker Fyfe's 7 carries for -35 yards, including his -24 yard fumble. We weren't that ineffective with the run. Newby had 10 carries for 56 yards and Cross had 8 carries for 39 yards (or 5.3 YPC between our RB).

 

We didn't seem to have much creativity in the run game either. Brandon Reilly had a 20 yard run against Purdue and didn't get it again. Against UCLA, we had 10 non-RB carries; against Purdue, 4.

 

I feel like you're just mincing words a bit here. I guess you could argue we weren't "that ineffective," but then that sounds like we're trying to paint a picture that it was actually a good day for our rushing attack. That, of course, would be wrong.

 

There is absolutely no reason Nebraska shouldn't have gained at least 150-200 yards rushing against that Purdue team, no matter how you slice up the variables.

[cm husker]

If a variable is a lack of commitment to running it, then that's a valid excuse. Of course there's no excuse for lacking that commitment going in.