RUN THE BALL!!!

[Saunders]

 

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

 

They are known for their power run game.

My issue with throwing the football is never the act of throwing itself, but when and how the team chooses to the throw the ball at times. I think there were crucial moments and sequences this year where they elected to throw the ball in a situation where running would've been more advantageous. I do realize, however, the Huskers sometimes lacked the push and consistency along the offensive line they needed.

 

In regards to Stanford specifically, however, I do believe it is important to point out that Kevin Hogan is a 65.9 percent career passer. Throwing the football is significantly more lucrative with an arm like that.

 

Agree!!!

[Guy Chamberlin]

Back when Nebraska had Osborne and Epley and played in the Big 8, Nebraska's strength and Osborne's schemes were able to wear down weaker teams and chalk up 9 wins every season.

 

But two or three times a year, Osborne went up against a team that could match them in strength, and/or a coach with a clever counter scheme. When these equally strong and fast teams challenged Nebraska, the scheme was shut down cold. Nebraska couldn't adjust. Sometimes it got ugly.

 

Today there are a lot more strong and fast teams, many of them having taken S&C lessons from Epley's handbook.

 

1993-1997 was 20 years into Tom Osborne's career, and it was not a change of scheme that made the difference, it was a wealth of talent. Osborne can also be credited for targeting and recruiting that wealth of talent, including putting a premium on defensive speed.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

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

 

They are known for their power run game.

My issue with throwing the football is never the act of throwing itself, but when and how the team chooses to the throw the ball at times. I think there were crucial moments and sequences this year where they elected to throw the ball in a situation where running would've been more advantageous. I do realize, however, the Huskers sometimes lacked the push and consistency along the offensive line they needed.

 

In regards to Stanford specifically, however, I do believe it is important to point out that Kevin Hogan is a 65.9 percent career passer. Throwing the football is significantly more lucrative with an arm like that.

 

Agree!!!

 

 

Also important to point out that Stanford is utterly loaded with monstrous offensive linemen, which has been a priority there for years.

 

Alabama came out with the best running back in the nation, and MSU came out determined to stop him. So Alabama went pass happy, pulled away, then rushed at their leisure.

 

A great O-line lets you do whatever you like. A defense that pitches a shutout is a nice thing, too.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sure his 90's teams were loaded with talent but he still managed to win 10 games a year for his entire career and didn't have superior talent in a lot of those years.

He won at least 9 games a year.

 

And, yes, our team was more talented and stronger than almost everyone else.

 

Thanks to Epley.

Don't oversell epleys influence.

 

I go back to the navy example. Few are going to trade for that OL yet they continually put up rushing yards against superior athletes. Why? Scheme and execution. That's the same reason NU made it look so "easy" all of those years.

What?????

 

It's very well documented the affect Epley had on our program when BD allowed him to have our players build muscle. No other program was going it along with the nutrition and we dominated most other teams.

 

We could take a lineman that other programs didn't want and make him a monster compared to the guy across the line.

 

I'm absolutely shocked you are down playing him importance.

You're crazy if you think epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius.

Can you specifically point to where he said "Epley had a greater influence on winning than Osborne's coaching genius," please?

 

I can't find it.

 

What he is saying, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that Epley had a significant impact on the program, one that is often deeply praised and well-respected among former players and coaches in the program. Furthermore, Epley is nationally known in the college athletics landscape as the godfather of modern sports strength and conditioning. He was a foundational pillar of success at Nebraska, but certainly not the biggest or only reason they were successful.

 

You're making a mountain out of a molehill with what BigRedBuster was saying.

It's as though you didn't read the entire conversation. He said that NU was more physically talented than almost everyone that they played because of epley.

 

I don't think they were more physically talented than every single team or even the supermajority of teams that they played, even some of the teams they beat badly in those years. Epley or not.

 

Osborne, his schemes and his ability to get guys to execute, is why NU steamrolled for 30 years. Know I I know? Because there were plenty of other programs as talented as NU who have not maintained that level of success.

 

P.s. I highly appreciate epleys influence and impact. I wish he'd maintained that focus through the late 90s and early 00s instead of handing duties off to GAs so he could pursue side interests.

 

I did read through the entire conversation, including the line you seem to have an issue with. You are the only person who seems to think he meant Epley had a greater influence than Osborne.

 

Again, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Nobody thinks Boyd Epley had the greatest impact on the program - he's just an extremely critical component, and it's certainly reasonable to suggest they don't sustain their level of success without his expertise.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

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

 

They are known for their power run game.

My issue with throwing the football is never the act of throwing itself, but when and how the team chooses to the throw the ball at times. I think there were crucial moments and sequences this year where they elected to throw the ball in a situation where running would've been more advantageous. I do realize, however, the Huskers sometimes lacked the push and consistency along the offensive line they needed.

 

In regards to Stanford specifically, however, I do believe it is important to point out that Kevin Hogan is a 65.9 percent career passer. Throwing the football is significantly more lucrative with an arm like that.

 

Agree!!!

 

 

Also important to point out that Stanford is utterly loaded with monstrous offensive linemen, which has been a priority there for years.

 

Alabama came out with the best running back in the nation, and MSU came out determined to stop him. So Alabama went pass happy, pulled away, then rushed at their leisure.

 

A great O-line lets you do whatever you like. A defense that pitches a shutout is a nice thing, too.

 

Well said. This goes without saying, but a great offensive line probably would've meant the world to Nebraska this season. The ability to overpower defensive front sevens would've meant more success in the run game, which likely would've led to less reliance on Armstrong's arm and more overall offensive success.

 

This program should strive to ensure the offensive and defensive lines are the single greatest position group. And while I believe that's the goal every season, it feels more like a cursory attempt than a devotion, in my opinion.

[Hunter94]

The good old days, when everyone knew we were going to run and no one could stop us, not even with 8 guys in the box.

[Kernal]

 

 

 

 

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

 

They are known for their power run game.

My issue with throwing the football is never the act of throwing itself, but when and how the team chooses to the throw the ball at times. I think there were crucial moments and sequences this year where they elected to throw the ball in a situation where running would've been more advantageous. I do realize, however, the Huskers sometimes lacked the push and consistency along the offensive line they needed.

 

In regards to Stanford specifically, however, I do believe it is important to point out that Kevin Hogan is a 65.9 percent career passer. Throwing the football is significantly more lucrative with an arm like that.

 

Agree!!!

 

 

Also important to point out that Stanford is utterly loaded with monstrous offensive linemen, which has been a priority there for years.

 

Alabama came out with the best running back in the nation, and MSU came out determined to stop him. So Alabama went pass happy, pulled away, then rushed at their leisure.

 

A great O-line lets you do whatever you like. A defense that pitches a shutout is a nice thing, too.

 

Well said. This goes without saying, but a great offensive line probably would've meant the world to Nebraska this season. The ability to overpower defensive front sevens would've meant more success in the run game, which likely would've led to less reliance on Armstrong's arm and more overall offensive success.

 

This program should strive to ensure the offensive and defensive lines are the single greatest position group. And while I believe that's the goal every season, it feels more like a cursory attempt than a devotion, in my opinion.

 

 

I do feel like Pelini had figured this out and was doing pretty well getting both O- and D-linemen recruited his last couple years. Overall, we have pretty good players on the lines and some promising guys redshirting on the O-line especially. We're thin at D-end, and could use a couple O-tackles in this class. However, our lines seemed to underperform the last several years. Whether this was due to lack of development, or changing scheme, or mis-evaluation in recruiting, or something else I don't know.

 

It was nice to see our D-line stop the run this year, and it was nice to see our O-line show improvement in pass-blocking and rushing vs. UCLA.

[HuskerExpat]

Back when Nebraska had Osborne and Epley and played in the Big 8, Nebraska's strength and Osborne's schemes were able to wear down weaker teams and chalk up 9 wins every season.

 

But two or three times a year, Osborne went up against a team that could match them in strength, and/or a coach with a clever counter scheme. When these equally strong and fast teams challenged Nebraska, the scheme was shut down cold. Nebraska couldn't adjust. Sometimes it got ugly.

 

Today there are a lot more strong and fast teams, many of them having taken S&C lessons from Epley's handbook.

 

1993-1997 was 20 years into Tom Osborne's career, and it was not a change of scheme that made the difference, it was a wealth of talent. Osborne can also be credited for targeting and recruiting that wealth of talent, including putting a premium on defensive speed.

 

Perfectly said.

[Mavric]

It matters less that Nebraska gained a season-best 326 yards and scored four rushing touchdowns. What matters is that it stayed committed to the running game, even when down 14 points in the first half.

Looking toward 2016, a physical, run-first personality gives Nebraska its most realistic shot at big improvement as the schedule toughens, with Oregon headed to Lincoln in September and trips to Wisconsin, Ohio State and Iowa.

You want to be a contender in the Big Ten West? Run the football.

Nebraska averaged 35.2 passes per game, more than every team in the Big Ten except Illinois, Purdue and Indiana, and five times exceeded 40 throws -- all in defeat.

 

ESPN

[Mavric]

Q: Is that kind of what happened with the running game against UCLA? Or was that more UCLA’s lack of run defense?

A: “Some teams are easier to run against. If you just watch UCLA’s season, the teams that did well against them ran the ball right at them. So it became pretty obvious as I watched all the film, this is a direction we need to go.

“This is what this team has to do to be good: run the ball, be selective what you do in the passing game, make these isolated throws from the quarterback because you’re running the ball well.

“I know that sounds late, but in our first year, we found out more about ourselves as we went. We ran the ball well against Michigan State. We’ve got to blame ourselves — look at the sequence of calling, how we call plays. We’ll take all the criticism. We get it.

“But, God dang, we had so many chances to win games. I looked at it the other day, the games and the scores. God darned, this thing could have been so drastically different with a few plays.”

Q: Why do you think you didn’t run it more? Was it a lack of trust in your line or the backs?

A: “I don’t think we had the confidence to run it all the time, so we had a pretty good mixture. Frankly, you learn more as you go.”

Q: The bowl game would indicate you can run out of this offense if you focus on it.

A: “I hope so. I think we can look in hindsight: This might have been a better identity for this team all along. And it was something, unfortunately, we uncovered late. But you still have to be able to do both. There are going to be (defenses) who will try and take it away if you are one-dimensional.”

 

OWH

[Atbone95]

 

Q: Is that kind of what happened with the running game against UCLA? Or was that more UCLA’s lack of run defense?

A: “Some teams are easier to run against. If you just watch UCLA’s season, the teams that did well against them ran the ball right at them. So it became pretty obvious as I watched all the film, this is a direction we need to go.

“This is what this team has to do to be good: run the ball, be selective what you do in the passing game, make these isolated throws from the quarterback because you’re running the ball well.

“I know that sounds late, but in our first year, we found out more about ourselves as we went. We ran the ball well against Michigan State. We’ve got to blame ourselves — look at the sequence of calling, how we call plays. We’ll take all the criticism. We get it.

“But, God dang, we had so many chances to win games. I looked at it the other day, the games and the scores. God darned, this thing could have been so drastically different with a few plays.”

Q: Why do you think you didn’t run it more? Was it a lack of trust in your line or the backs?

A: “I don’t think we had the confidence to run it all the time, so we had a pretty good mixture. Frankly, you learn more as you go.”

Q: The bowl game would indicate you can run out of this offense if you focus on it.

A: “I hope so. I think we can look in hindsight: This might have been a better identity for this team all along. And it was something, unfortunately, we uncovered late. But you still have to be able to do both. There are going to be (defenses) who will try and take it away if you are one-dimensional.”

 

OWH

 

Hmmm, something they uncovered late.... when fans and media alike hounded them to try it after starting 1-2...

[Bowfin]

I admire Riley being honest and frank.

 

This will be a very entertaining and interesting year. I hope to add "enjoyable" at the end of season.

[lo country]

I admire Riley being honest and frank.

 

This will be a very entertaining and interesting year. I hope to add "enjoyable" at the end of season.

My hope is that we are truly committed to this as opposed to coach speak. Sadly, I have been snake bit for the past 10 years with coaches saying all the right things and then watching as "we are who we thought we are" surfaces. Riley does appear to be a guy who knows the expectations and is doing what he can i.e. recruiting, staff changes etc.... I think he, like Bo, realize that the B1G is different than perceived from the outside looking in. IMO, it would also be hard to have a game plan and scheme implemented say in spring and fall and mid season make a whole sale change. Even as bad as the losses were, 4 (IIRC) were in the last 15 seconds..... Not making excuses, but Riley probably thought we were "that close" as opposed to we need to change our scheme/mentality...

 

I am looking forward to this season as I was last year. We have the pieces in place to be significantly better than last year.

[BigRedBuster]

Do we need an elite running game?

 

LINK

[GSG]

Do we need an elite running game?

 

LINK

 

ELITE? PROBABLY NOT. BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO RELY ON IT WHEN TOMMY IS HAVING AN OFF DAY, OR WE HAVE TO PLAY A BACKUP QB, OR THE WIND IS BLOWING 900 MILES HOUR (YA'KNOW, INSTEAD OF THROWING 45 TIMES IN A HURRICANE)