LJS: Husker Run Game is Common Sense

[Mavric]

No surprise there. Riley declared last December he wants the Huskers to be among the top three in the Big Ten in rushing (they were sixth last season). And, yes, I give Riley the benefit of the doubt in regard to his declaration, if only because for this particular NU squad, at this moment in time, an improved ground attack could be beneficial on several levels.

 

Riley mentioned a couple of reasons Wednesday, a day before preseason camp begins.

 

It's really a matter of common sense.

 

"Tommy is an excellent play-action, bootleg guy," the coach said of projected starting quarterback Tommy Armstrong. "He throws as well on the run as anybody I've ever been around. I love it."

 

Although I'm not exactly Mike Tomlin, I know it's much easier for a quarterback to sell the fake on play-action and bootleg plays if the running game is humming.

 

LJS

[Mavric]

I guess we'll see how common sense works out.

 

I've long maintained that common sense isn't as common as the name implies.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I think it's important to note that "common sense" is Sipple's, not Riley's words.

 

I'd love if Nebraska runs the ball more this season, and runs it creatively. Not just running it into the center for 2 yards, declaring it's not working, before chucking the ball around the yard. That was my biggest criticism of the coaching staff last season, they gave up on the run too easily.

 

As Riley actually said, "it's about selection." There are so many ways to move the ball on the ground, and I think Nebraska has the horses to accomplish that this year.

[84HuskerLaw]

I think it's important to note that "common sense" is Sipple's, not Riley's words.

 

I'd love if Nebraska runs the ball more this season, and runs it creatively. Not just running it into the center for 2 yards, declaring it's not working, before chucking the ball around the yard. That was my biggest criticism of the coaching staff last season, they gave up on the run too easily.

 

As Riley actually said, "it's about selection." There are so many ways to move the ball on the ground, and I think Nebraska has the horses to accomplish that this year.

I am positive guy these days and am willing to give Riley lots of opportunity but I am a little uneasy about the use of the phrase "its about selection" in the run game. We saw a little success in the run game outside of the tail back spot in the UCLA with a couple decent gains on the reverses and end around type plays but about three or four of those per game is plenty! Those end around deals blow up and you find yourself in 2 and 16 as well. Those are drive killers as the percentage chance of getting a first down in 2nd and 3rd and 10 plus are low. 3rd and 5 or 6 is one thing but 3rd and 12 or 15 means O line holding blocks much longer, QBs throwing the ball 20 yards or more in the air, etc etc. Short quick throws are much easier for most QBs to complete as the accuracy is much easier. Most people can throw well enough to play catch with someone but when you start throwing hard 20 or more yards to hit a WR on the crossing pattern, it takes some dam good skills and strength. You need to have your footwork down so you get the zip on the ball and accuracy, etc. Errant throws and weak or 'flutter' balls turn into INTs, etc.

 

Sacks and big losses in the run game are drive killers. So 'selectivity' to me is a warning alarm.

[ZRod]

Like INAFID said; it's not necessarily running the ball more, it's how you do it. Yes there were loses where it was true that we needed to run more, but the timing and selection of run plays was more important I think than overall quantity. When you feel the need to throw the majority of the time on 3rd and short, you're going to have problems in any league, unless you're built for an air raid style offense.

 

Langsdorf needs to understand that 1 and 2 yard gains early on are perfectly fine. Those plays will bust for 10+ yards as the drive/game goes on and fatigue sets in. Yes you will get stuffed on some plays, but you're also establishing a tone for the entire game by committing to the run.

[Redux]

Here's the deal. We know full well what we have in Riley and what we have this year in Tommy.

 

Riley is a guy who likes the creative pass and the standard run. That's backwards from what we are used to/desire, at least in a simplistic view. Tommy is a runner first and a thrower second, regardless of the talented WR corps we have at his disposal.

 

We will no doubt run the ball more this season than last, but it will be out of necessity. Necessity to win games and necessity to silence the critics a bit who are chomping at the bit after a 6-7 year. We churn out 8, 9 or fingers crossed 10 wins this season and a lot of that criticism goes away. Then they are free to do as they wish in 2017 with a true passing QB, whomever it ends up being. And we will be like "it's all good guys, you got this!".

[Scratchtown]

I think it's important to note that "common sense" is Sipple's, not Riley's words.

 

I'd love if Nebraska runs the ball more this season, and runs it creatively. Not just running it into the center for 2 yards, declaring it's not working, before chucking the ball around the yard. That was my biggest criticism of the coaching staff last season, they gave up on the run too easily.

 

As Riley actually said, "it's about selection." There are so many ways to move the ball on the ground, and I think Nebraska has the horses to accomplish that this year.

 

This x1000.

 

Go back and look at the run scheme's Watson had in 2010. There's no reason they can't pull some guards and tackles and run counters, traps, powers. I'm not a fan of stretch plays and the like.

 

I'm not sure how much NU did any of that last year, I would have to go back and look but off the top of my head it was either a jet sweep or essentially a dive.

[Scratchtown]

 

I think it's important to note that "common sense" is Sipple's, not Riley's words.

 

I'd love if Nebraska runs the ball more this season, and runs it creatively. Not just running it into the center for 2 yards, declaring it's not working, before chucking the ball around the yard. That was my biggest criticism of the coaching staff last season, they gave up on the run too easily.

 

As Riley actually said, "it's about selection." There are so many ways to move the ball on the ground, and I think Nebraska has the horses to accomplish that this year.

I am positive guy these days and am willing to give Riley lots of opportunity but I am a little uneasy about the use of the phrase "its about selection" in the run game. We saw a little success in the run game outside of the tail back spot in the UCLA with a couple decent gains on the reverses and end around type plays but about three or four of those per game is plenty! Those end around deals blow up and you find yourself in 2 and 16 as well. Those are drive killers as the percentage chance of getting a first down in 2nd and 3rd and 10 plus are low. 3rd and 5 or 6 is one thing but 3rd and 12 or 15 means O line holding blocks much longer, QBs throwing the ball 20 yards or more in the air, etc etc. Short quick throws are much easier for most QBs to complete as the accuracy is much easier. Most people can throw well enough to play catch with someone but when you start throwing hard 20 or more yards to hit a WR on the crossing pattern, it takes some dam good skills and strength. You need to have your footwork down so you get the zip on the ball and accuracy, etc. Errant throws and weak or 'flutter' balls turn into INTs, etc.

 

Sacks and big losses in the run game are drive killers. So 'selectivity' to me is a warning alarm.

 

He wasn't referring to gimmick plays as such.

[Enhance]

 

I think it's important to note that "common sense" is Sipple's, not Riley's words.

 

I'd love if Nebraska runs the ball more this season, and runs it creatively. Not just running it into the center for 2 yards, declaring it's not working, before chucking the ball around the yard. That was my biggest criticism of the coaching staff last season, they gave up on the run too easily.

 

As Riley actually said, "it's about selection." There are so many ways to move the ball on the ground, and I think Nebraska has the horses to accomplish that this year.

 

This x1000.

 

Go back and look at the run scheme's Watson had in 2010. There's no reason they can't pull some guards and tackles and run counters, traps, powers. I'm not a fan of stretch plays and the like.

 

I'm not sure how much NU did any of that last year, I would have to go back and look but off the top of my head it was either a jet sweep or essentially a dive.

It was significantly more substantial than that, but the most damning concern was a lack of execution along the interior. I remember making the observation a few times last year that the team was trying a variety of different running plays, in individual games, that weren't netting very many yards.

 

Nebraska also had continuity issues because of it, i.e. certain players having big games one week and being non-existent the next. A perfect example would be Jano, who would have 4-5 carries one game and disappear the following week.

 

One thing every fan should be careful of is the UCLA performance and how that may or may not translate to 2016. UCLA was not very good in the front seven.

[84HuskerLaw]

I know you have to not assume UCLA is indicative but while they were not a great run defense, we also did get better running the ball as time went on. Ozigbo made a big difference as opposed to Newby in the inside the tackle stuff. None of them could get wide consistently as for much of the first half of the year we couldn't block on the outside. We don't run enough basic 'pitch' plays and try to use the reverse / fly sweep plays for wide stuff in attempt, apparently, to get more speed out there so we can hopefully turn the corner. But power up the middle plays were darn good last year. We blocked them better as the year went by and had luck against several opponents. Not just Bruins. I am all for getting wide too but you need real speed!

[Mavric]

One thing every fan should be careful of is the UCLA performance and how that may or may not translate to 2016. UCLA was not very good in the front seven.

Yes and no. UCLA was not very good. But there were other teams that weren't very good that we didn't really try to run on. And there were teams that were pretty good at run defense (Michigan State) that we had pretty good success running the ball against.

 

I'm not saying we should run the ball 80% of the time every game. But people continually trying to shrug off the results of the UCLA game aren't really looking at the whole picture.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think we will run more and run better, but let's put to rest this trope that we ran the ball straight into the line a few times, then gave up and flung the ball all over the place.

 

We ran as much as we passed, and were right in the middle of the run-centric Big 10, with a higher per-game rushing offense than Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Penn State, and just a yard behind the conservative ball control offense of Iowa. Nebraska's 4.7 yard per carry rushing average was perfectly decent, reflecting a sane diversity of play calls.

 

Interesting to see Coach Power T invoke Shawn Watson, who was often criticized on this same board for being too cute and never running the ball enough.

 

If the defense holds up its end of the bargain and if Tommy makes better decisions both running and passing, I think run game will evolve nicely.

[Mavric]

We ran as much as we passed, and were right in the middle of the run-centric Big 10, with a higher per-game rushing offense than Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Penn State, and just a yard behind the conservative ball control offense of Iowa. Nebraska's 4.7 yard per carry rushing average was perfectly decent, reflecting a sane diversity of play calls.

 

Careful. You're creating a pretty good argument against your own assertion that we shouldn't expect to be able to run the ball like we did against UCLA.

[Scratchtown]

I think we will run more and run better, but let's put to rest this trope that we ran the ball straight into the line a few times, then gave up and flung the ball all over the place.

 

We ran as much as we passed, and were right in the middle of the run-centric Big 10, with a higher per-game rushing offense than Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Penn State, and just a yard behind the conservative ball control offense of Iowa. Nebraska's 4.7 yard per carry rushing average was perfectly decent, reflecting a sane diversity of play calls.

 

Interesting to see Coach Power T invoke Shawn Watson, who was often criticized on this same board for being too cute and never running the ball enough.

 

If the defense holds up its end of the bargain and if Tommy makes better decisions both running and passing, I think run game will evolve nicely.

His run scheme's were good I always thought. I thought his decision making/play calling was suspect. However I liked the scheme of what Watson was doing.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

One thing every fan should be careful of is the UCLA performance and how that may or may not translate to 2016. UCLA was not very good in the front seven.

Yes and no. UCLA was not very good. But there were other teams that weren't very good that we didn't really try to run on. And there were teams that were pretty good at run defense (Michigan State) that we had pretty good success running the ball against.

 

I'm not saying we should run the ball 80% of the time every game. But people continually trying to shrug off the results of the UCLA game aren't really looking at the whole picture.

 

 

One thing that I've always been amazed at is our ability to move the ball on Michigan State, who has consistently fielded one of the best defenses in the conference and country the past few years.

 

I don't think we should expect a complete flip in run/pass this season, and definitely nothing like we saw against UCLA on a game-to-game basis. But if anything, the UCLA game should give the staff confidence that Nebraska can run the ball and often experiences more success when being run-heavy as opposed to pass-heavy.