RUN THE BALL!!!

[BRV920]

72 and 73 seasons are very similar. Having trouble finding info for 74 right now.

[BRV920]

Every season thru 78 becomes more run heavy. Closer to 75 or 80 percent run.

[BigRedBuster]

Which, adds to my assertion that because of Epley, we were able to physically dominate most teams.

[BigWillie]

 

 

 

That's a half story.

 

Example:

 

BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)

 

Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)

 

Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)

 

That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the run:pass ratio in losses is 48:52

 

Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.

 

 

Please enlighten.

 

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

That's a half story.

 

Example:

 

BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)

 

Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)

 

Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)

 

That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the run:pass ratio in losses is 48:52

 

Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.

 

 

Please enlighten.

 

 

It's rather simple. Look types of running plays (and when we used them) vs Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Northwestern... vs what we did vs MSU and UCLA. Hell, Purdue's rush D was worse than UCLA's, and we couldn't have been more vanilla in the run game against the boilermakers.

[Xmas32]

I think the issue is more situational play calling instead of run/pass ratio, especially considering the strengths/weaknesses of some of key personnel.

 

Its maddening to see a 3rd and 1 pass, especially once they've established a consistently successful run game. Its silly to create much creativity in the pass game, but shirk that responsibility with the run game, especially when you know that weather may be a factor that forces you into a running game plan even if the opponent is more suited to stop the run, and you have a QB that struggles at times to make the simplest passes in the best of scenarios.

 

Absolutely, a team can win a lot with a predominate passing game, but first, you better have the necessary personnel to do it, and second, based on our location, you still have to put the necessary effort into developing a creative running game to counter balance the creative pass attack for days when Mother Nature doesn't cooperate.

 

Personally, I think the coaches failed miserably most of the season on equally developing a creative run scheme as they did the pass, especially considering where our personnel's talent seemed strongest, and there seemed to be an unfair amount of situational play calls that seemed to kill game/drive momentum (usually it seemed to be a pass play).

 

My only point of contention with your post is your last paragraph where you mention where our personnel is strongest. I could be wrong here but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that most felt the WR corp was far superior to what NU had at RB. I do agree that having a adequate running game is important but if you've got a bunch of studs @ WR then I think you have to get them the ball. It's going to be really interesting to watch this offense over the next couple years.

[BRV920]

Eppley definitely was a major part of the recipe. But it tells me that running the ball is the best way to win football games.

[BigRedBuster]

Eppley definitely was a major part of the recipe. But it tells me that running the ball is the best way to win football games.

I don't think anyone is arguing that point unless you physically can't dominate. Then you need to mix in more passing against better teams or teams that sell out to stop the run.

 

I don't know anyone in this thread that wouldn't love the ability to run the ball 70% of the time and win every game.

 

This team physically wont be going that.

 

And, I Agee a creative running game can help. But, it's not everything.

[BRV920]

I'd agree with all that. I just want our identity to be a run first team.

[BigRedBuster]

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.

 

The disagreement (I think) is that some don't think there are situations like Alabama last night where passing more is a good strategy.

[BigRedBuster]

Btw....Stanford is about 50-50 right now on pass vs run against Iowa.

 

They are known for their power run game.

[BigWillie]

 

 

 

 

 

That's a half story.

 

Example:

 

BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)

 

Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)

 

Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)

 

That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the run:pass ratio in losses is 48:52

 

Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.

 

 

Please enlighten.

 

 

It's rather simple. Look types of running plays (and when we used them) vs Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Northwestern... vs what we did vs MSU and UCLA. Hell, Purdue's rush D was worse than UCLA's, and we couldn't have been more vanilla in the run game against the boilermakers.

 

 

It's not my job to gather info from your statements.

 

Specifically, what did we do that was different?

 

More importantly, was there more zone blocking? Man? Iso runs? Reads? Fullback? Power? Personnel (21, 11, 12)? Bueller?

[BigRedBuster]

Stanford now at 54% rush in the game.

[Mavric]

Stanford now at 54% rush in the game.

 

They can simply do whatever they want this game.

 

Also, considering they have a QB who completes 68% of his passes and has a 24/7 TD/INT ratio, it's not exactly the same ball game.

[BigRedBuster]

I agree, my point is, even a power ti team will have a game where they pass more.