RUN THE BALL!!!

[cm husker]

To me, it was more about the use of pulling and man blocking at the point of attack that I liked seeing (and that was conspicuously absent most of this season). It's amazing how much better an OL looks when it has a number advantage at the point of attack.

[Branno]

 

 

Yeah, the power run game worked. Worked against MSU, worked against UCLA. Wouldve worked against Purdue, Illinois, etc. Sigh...

 

Big reason the running game worked vs MSU was the passing game was working so well. They were on their heels.

 

I think it's a mistake to think we could have lined up and ran over everyone like we did vs UCLA. I'd have liked to see us commit more to the run this year given our QB situation but there's some nuance here.

 

We didn't run the ball well vs good teams in 2014 when we had a great RB in Abdullah.

 

MSU - 37 carries for 47 yards 1.3 ypc

Wisconsin - 46 carries for 118 yards 2.6 ypc

USC - 43 carries for 143 yards 3.3 ypc

 

Many of us would be complaining if we just slammed our heads into the wall with the running game without it succeeding as well. The defense was a problem for much of the season, and cost us games as well. Both units started playing better football at the end of the season, which isn't that surprising given we had a new coaching staff.

 

 

Yeah. This, too.

 

Listen, I get what everyone is saying. I think we could have run the ball more. I think Tommy could have completed a few more of his passes, too, and a few less to the opponents. He could have run with more authority. He should have obeyed a couple more of the play calls. I think turnovers, penalties, brain farts and defense had far more to do with our losses than play-calling. You can blame Riley for the continued lack of discipline and consistency. That's fair game.

 

But the notion that we could simply have ridden Janovich and Cross to victory in most of our losses is wishful thinking.

 

I do think there's a weird double-standard on this board of remembering the running plays that worked, forgetting the running plays that didn't, remembering the pass plays that failed and forgetting the pass plays that kept drives alive.

 

On a team that averaged 450 yards a game, 33 points, and maintained perfectly respectable third down conversion and time-of-possession stats.

 

I'm willing to throw both the Illinois and Purdue games to the wolves.

 

The fact that there is far less frustration and debate concerning Nebraska's ongoing defensive woes is strange to me.

 

 

Nothing angered me more than when I saw us go into quarters coverage and UCLA throw a ~70 yard TD pass. But, at least we saw Banker use dime more often and make some adjustments to scheme. We never really made adjustments to the offensive scheme, hence why you still see people focusing on it.

[Mavric]

To me, it was more about the use of pulling and man blocking at the point of attack that I liked seeing (and that was conspicuously absent most of this season). It's amazing how much better an OL looks when it has a number advantage at the point of attack.

 

Yep. That's the other half of the argument that is hard to quantify but is definitely there. Simply pointing out "LOOK! We ran the ball x times in this game" is only half the story. If a sizable portion of the running plays that you do call are a straight-ahead run into the middle - which we did a lot of this year - you're not even giving the running game much of a chance to get going. Not that you should never run those plays, but having some misdirection and pulling in the mix is needed to have much expectation of success.

 

That we run the ball as well as we did despite not having any too much creativity in the scheme is actually a pretty good credit to the line and backs.

[4skers89]

To me, it was more about the use of pulling and man blocking at the point of attack that I liked seeing (and that was conspicuously absent most of this season). It's amazing how much better an OL looks when it has a number advantage at the point of attack.

I think they scrapped those plays mid season. I rewatched most of the bowl game and didn't see any linemen pulling. I believe it was the NW game I was rewatching where they were trying but it didn't look good. The pulling lineman were lined up a half yard off the line, they were slow and looked unsure of who to block. At least it's in the playbook but something has to change. Either better talent, coaching or dedicating more practice time. Spending more time in practice on run plays will help to get the timing down. Sometimes I think the coaches tried things and decided we weren't good at executing them and abandoned them. What they fell back on was passing which is what they spent the majority of time practicing. Given where we were as a passing team it probably made sense to focus on improving it first. Let's hope the coaches are serious about running the ball. I'm skeptical how successful the run plays from the bowl will be against normal sized B1G 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

[84HuskerLaw]

 

Of course you can't run like that every game.

 

Husker fans will never forget a third and one pass play that fails, but they forget all the running plays that get stuffed by defenses lined up to stop the run.

 

They also seem to forget the pass plays that kept drives alive. And scored 26 touchdowns.

 

That stat about how we win when we run more and lose when we pass more? That's a bit misleading. You run more often when the running game is working. When defenses adjust - and the good ones do - it doesn't work as well. When you're physically dominant you can keep running it down a team's throat. Every coach in the game would love to do that, but it's not that easy and this Nebraska team simply isn't there yet. It's not always the decision to run the ball more, it's how well you're actually pounding the rock. And when your own team has a dangerously porous defense, can you afford to be patient with the rushing game when the other team scores on four play, 2:30 drives? It's hardly surprising that the passing numbers skew higher in games where the team is losing in the fourth quarter, but only wishful thinking that more fourth quarter rushes would have succeeded.

 

There is a lot more that has gone into Nebraska's losses than offensive play-calling.

 

And it's a tired Nebraska argument that "exploiting what a defenses is willing to give" is some kind of West Coast philosophy that goes against the concept of power football.

 

Exploiting what a defense is willing to give is what successful coaches have done since the dawn of the game, including those on the four remaining teams in the college football playoffs.

 

So when we're running the for 5.5 yards per carry against Illinois but still continue to throw it 30+ times completing 32%, that was a decision based on how well they were stopping our running game?

 

Or when our backs are gaining 5.3 yards per carry against Wisconsin and we're completing 39% of or passes, that wasn't a decision to keep passing?

 

Or 4.8 ypc from our backs wasn't good enough to get more than 20 carries against Purdue so we were simply forced to have our walk-on QB throw it 48 times?

 

No one is saying there isn't more that goes into it than offensive play-calling. There are plenty of areas to get better. But this is a thread about running the ball. And it's one thing that the coaches have the most direct control over.

 

I tend to see both sides of this debate BUT I really lean heavily toward the argument that Riley and Company want to pass first and run to complement the throw and despite strong evidence to the contrary, they really didn't give the run game enough chance to develop. Power running offense requires a considerable degree of dedication by the coaches and a basic element of faith. Early on, sometimes well into the second or even third quarter, the runs will often be 2 or 3 yards per carry with some no gains and once in a while a loss of a couple. These runs are like the punches in the gut during the 15 round heavy weight fight. You have to wear the opponent down with repeated blows. We've all heard many times the simple truth that running hard and making the defense tackle a toiugh running back takes a toll. Sooner or later they tire out and that's when the runs get bigger and longer. Also, the O line can pound the D line down and the D liine gets tired and slows down. That's when the little plays become big ones.

It was a rare case (if at all) this year that our offense wore down the opponent. This is because when you rely on passing, you often move the ball or fail in a hand full of plays. Passing teams tend to hold the ball and score or have to punt in fewer downs than running teams. Riley has several times made the statement that he believes you need to get at least a couple 15 to 25 yard gains during the course of any successful drive. This often happens in running offenses as well BUT it is not necessary. One can easily observe 1 out 4 successful 80 yard TD drives.

[BRV920]

This! Has everybody forgot how we beat Miami in 94?

[NUance]

This! Has everybody forgot how we beat Miami in 94?

 

You mean our dominating Blackshirt defense?? Heck no I haven't forgotten!

[Hunter94]

 

 

Of course you can't run like that every game.

 

Husker fans will never forget a third and one pass play that fails, but they forget all the running plays that get stuffed by defenses lined up to stop the run.

 

They also seem to forget the pass plays that kept drives alive. And scored 26 touchdowns.

 

That stat about how we win when we run more and lose when we pass more? That's a bit misleading. You run more often when the running game is working. When defenses adjust - and the good ones do - it doesn't work as well. When you're physically dominant you can keep running it down a team's throat. Every coach in the game would love to do that, but it's not that easy and this Nebraska team simply isn't there yet. It's not always the decision to run the ball more, it's how well you're actually pounding the rock. And when your own team has a dangerously porous defense, can you afford to be patient with the rushing game when the other team scores on four play, 2:30 drives? It's hardly surprising that the passing numbers skew higher in games where the team is losing in the fourth quarter, but only wishful thinking that more fourth quarter rushes would have succeeded.

 

There is a lot more that has gone into Nebraska's losses than offensive play-calling.

 

And it's a tired Nebraska argument that "exploiting what a defenses is willing to give" is some kind of West Coast philosophy that goes against the concept of power football.

 

Exploiting what a defense is willing to give is what successful coaches have done since the dawn of the game, including those on the four remaining teams in the college football playoffs.

 

So when we're running the for 5.5 yards per carry against Illinois but still continue to throw it 30+ times completing 32%, that was a decision based on how well they were stopping our running game?

 

Or when our backs are gaining 5.3 yards per carry against Wisconsin and we're completing 39% of or passes, that wasn't a decision to keep passing?

 

Or 4.8 ypc from our backs wasn't good enough to get more than 20 carries against Purdue so we were simply forced to have our walk-on QB throw it 48 times?

 

No one is saying there isn't more that goes into it than offensive play-calling. There are plenty of areas to get better. But this is a thread about running the ball. And it's one thing that the coaches have the most direct control over.

 

I tend to see both sides of this debate BUT I really lean heavily toward the argument that Riley and Company want to pass first and run to complement the throw and despite strong evidence to the contrary, they really didn't give the run game enough chance to develop. Power running offense requires a considerable degree of dedication by the coaches and a basic element of faith. Early on, sometimes well into the second or even third quarter, the runs will often be 2 or 3 yards per carry with some no gains and once in a while a loss of a couple. These runs are like the punches in the gut during the 15 round heavy weight fight. You have to wear the opponent down with repeated blows. We've all heard many times the simple truth that running hard and making the defense tackle a toiugh running back takes a toll. Sooner or later they tire out and that's when the runs get bigger and longer. Also, the O line can pound the D line down and the D liine gets tired and slows down. That's when the little plays become big ones.

It was a rare case (if at all) this year that our offense wore down the opponent. This is because when you rely on passing, you often move the ball or fail in a hand full of plays. Passing teams tend to hold the ball and score or have to punt in fewer downs than running teams. Riley has several times made the statement that he believes you need to get at least a couple 15 to 25 yard gains during the course of any successful drive. This often happens in running offenses as well BUT it is not necessary. One can easily observe 1 out 4 successful 80 yard TD drives.

 

if your offense is going 3 and out......their defense spends a lot less time on the field......and your defense gets little rest on the sideline........

run the muthafooking ball!!

[BRV920]

Totally forgot that the defense scored all those points. Wait?

[whateveritis1224]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of course you can't run like that every game.

 

Husker fans will never forget a third and one pass play that fails, but they forget all the running plays that get stuffed by defenses lined up to stop the run.

 

They also seem to forget the pass plays that kept drives alive. And scored 26 touchdowns.

 

That stat about how we win when we run more and lose when we pass more? That's a bit misleading. You run more often when the running game is working. When defenses adjust - and the good ones do - it doesn't work as well. When you're physically dominant you can keep running it down a team's throat. Every coach in the game would love to do that, but it's not that easy and this Nebraska team simply isn't there yet. It's not always the decision to run the ball more, it's how well you're actually pounding the rock. And when your own team has a dangerously porous defense, can you afford to be patient with the rushing game when the other team scores on four play, 2:30 drives? It's hardly surprising that the passing numbers skew higher in games where the team is losing in the fourth quarter, but only wishful thinking that more fourth quarter rushes would have succeeded.

 

There is a lot more that has gone into Nebraska's losses than offensive play-calling.

 

And it's a tired Nebraska argument that "exploiting what a defenses is willing to give" is some kind of West Coast philosophy that goes against the concept of power football.

 

Exploiting what a defense is willing to give is what successful coaches have done since the dawn of the game, including those on the four remaining teams in the college football playoffs.

So when we're running the for 5.5 yards per carry against Illinois but still continue to throw it 30+ times completing 32%, that was a decision based on how well they were stopping our running game?

 

Or when our backs are gaining 5.3 yards per carry against Wisconsin and we're completing 39% of or passes, that wasn't a decision to keep passing?

 

Or 4.8 ypc from our backs wasn't good enough to get more than 20 carries against Purdue so we were simply forced to have our walk-on QB throw it 48 times?

 

No one is saying there isn't more that goes into it than offensive play-calling. There are plenty of areas to get better. But this is a thread about running the ball. And it's one thing that the coaches have the most direct control over.

I tend to see both sides of this debate BUT I really lean heavily toward the argument that Riley and Company want to pass first and run to complement the throw and despite strong evidence to the contrary, they really didn't give the run game enough chance to develop. Power running offense requires a considerable degree of dedication by the coaches and a basic element of faith. Early on, sometimes well into the second or even third quarter, the runs will often be 2 or 3 yards per carry with some no gains and once in a while a loss of a couple. These runs are like the punches in the gut during the 15 round heavy weight fight. You have to wear the opponent down with repeated blows. We've all heard many times the simple truth that running hard and making the defense tackle a toiugh running back takes a toll. Sooner or later they tire out and that's when the runs get bigger and longer. Also, the O line can pound the D line down and the D liine gets tired and slows down. That's when the little plays become big ones.

It was a rare case (if at all) this year that our offense wore down the opponent. This is because when you rely on passing, you often move the ball or fail in a hand full of plays. Passing teams tend to hold the ball and score or have to punt in fewer downs than running teams. Riley has several times made the statement that he believes you need to get at least a couple 15 to 25 yard gains during the course of any successful drive. This often happens in running offenses as well BUT it is not necessary. One can easily observe 1 out 4 successful 80 yard TD drives.

if your offense is going 3 and out......their defense spends a lot less time on the field......and your defense gets little rest on the sideline........

run the muthafooking ball!!

You can do a 3 and out with running 3 straight plays also. This myth that it's better to go 3 and out running 3 times vs 3 and out passing really annoys me. Your defense is getting the exact same rest either way. The only difference is more time goes off the game clock.

 

All I want for the huskers is for them to win. How doesn't matter to me. If there are 50 passes a game with an effective running game I say go for it. Was the bowl game great play selection? Yes because it was also effective.

[BRV920]

Could somebody please point out a wildly successful college team that plays in cold weather that throws the ball 50 to 60 times a game? I for the life of me can't think of one.

[StPaulHusker]

Could somebody please point out a wildly successful college team that plays in cold weather that throws the ball 50 to 60 times a game? I for the life of me can't think of one.

Only one team in FBS threw it between 50-60 times a game and that was Washington State. They finished 9-4 this year

[BRV920]

Then please point out a team that throws it 40 to 50 times a game that is consistently successful? Washing state isn't exactly what I call a cold weather school. MSU might be close to that many pass attempts per game. But that's about the only school I can think of.

[ColoradoHusk]

Then please point out a team that throws it 40 to 50 times a game that is consistently successful? Washing state isn't exactly what I call a cold weather school. MSU might be close to that many pass attempts per game. But that's about the only school I can think of.

When you say MSU, do you mean Michigan State? They only threw it an average of 31 attempts per game, and that was with a future NFL QB as their QB for every game except 1.