Newby vs. Ozigbo - who should start & who should see the most carries

[Enhance]

 

 

 

In regards to bolded part 1, "a lot" is subjective - sure. To me, running for 4 or more yards between the tackles is a good number even if it's against a defensive line you should be able to out-mustcle. Furthermore, correct me if I'm mistaken, but your comparison to the YPC nationally seems flawed. You're significantly shortening the sample size (using only runs between the tackles) and then comparing it to the national YPC average. That's not a very fair analysis and my assumption would be most teams look bad against the national YPC average if you only compare their runs between the tackles.

I realize that isn't really an apples to apples comparison. But when that is most of what we do, it isn't as far off as it may seem. My main point was to show that I don't think that's really having a lot of success. Yes, it isn't bad for running up the middle. But then people look at us only averaging 3.2 ypc and say we struggle to run the ball. Most of why we "struggle" is because we don't give ourselves very many chances for big running plays because the vast majority of our runs are right up the middle. We barley averaged 4 ypc against a defensive line that was completely overmatched. Against decent lines, it'll be 2 ypc (like it was against Northwestern last year) and people will say "we tried to run the ball but couldn't" which - I maintain - is most due to the types of run plays we are calling as opposed to our actual ability to run the ball if we had a more varied rushing attack.

 

If you want to use that analysis regarding middle rushes, I won't begrudge you. But, lets say myself and 1,000 people drive from Lincoln to Omaha every day for work and then back. Your comparison is kind of like comparing the average number of miles I drive in my car in the middle lane of the highway versus the average number of miles everybody drives their car in all three lanes of a highway. My average is going to look bad regardless. If you want to know how many miles I drive in the middle on average - great. Otherwise, pretty much everybody's average, when isolated, is going to look bad. That's all I'll say on it.

 

As far as the bolded is concerned, I again will say I think you make a good point that I can agree with. The run game lacked diversity Saturday. But, let me ask you this - do you believe Nebraska's offensive line played well against Wyoming last Saturday? Don't try to qualify your answer too much - just answer honestly.

 

I don't think your analogy really works although if you drive in the middle lane 80% of the time .....

 

I was at the game but haven't had time to really go back and watch it to say if I thought they played well or not. I think you have to be playing pretty well to average four yards per carry straight up the middle because most of that would be the push the line is getting - it's not like we had backs were breaking free for 20 yard runs that upped the average. The couple outside play we did run didn't get as far but I don't know if those were the line's fault or not.

See, I don't think they played well. They got beat at the point of attack a lot on Saturday and often played out of position based on Wyoming's defensive fronts.

 

Damon Benning and Matt Vrzal, exclusive of one another, said Nebraska's offensive line didn't play well Saturday, either.

 

My point is I don't think this line is overly good. I see a lot of steady, consistent players, but few game changers. I don't see a lot of all conference talent there. I haven't read or seen people praising this line very much.

 

So, we can talk about run game creativity all we want, and I think they could've done better Saturday. However, I also think they just need to get better than they are in general.

[Mavric]

See, I don't think they played well. They got beat at the point of attack a lot on Saturday and often played out of position based on Wyoming's defensive fronts.

 

Damon Benning and Matt Vrzal, exclusive of one another, said Nebraska's offensive line didn't play well Saturday, either.

 

My point is I don't think this line is overly good. I see a lot of steady, consistent players, but few game changers. I don't see a lot of all conference talent there. I haven't read or seen people praising this line very much.

 

So, we can talk about run game creativity all we want, and I think they could've done better Saturday. However, I also think they just need to get better than they are in general.

People have complained about our line quite a bit over the last few years despite often finishing as a Top 20 rushing offense and being in the same ballpark in Football Outsiders offensive line rankings. For example, in 2014, Football Outsiders ranked our line as #11. They were #29 last year so down the list a ways but still respectable. They don't have any stats up for this year yet but I would guess it'll be better than you think.

 

So I guess I don't put a lot of stock in people making general comments without really showing on film where they were missing blocks. It's too easy for people to get the feeling that the line isn't playing well just because the running game isn't breaking big plays. But there are a lot of variables that go into that - playcalling, blitzes, defensive alignments, other blockers (RBs, TEs, WRs), etc.

[Mavric]

As an example, there was all kinds of complaints about our OL after the Miami game last year. When I actually went back and watched the tape, they played really well.

[Count 'Bility]

its also possible that not playing well in one game doesnt have to write a narrative for the whole season. We've rushed well in the past, but there's also been games that werent pretty. It happens. It's just in this case, we've only had 2 games, one of which wasnt good, so some folks may be thinking oh sh#t.

[Enhance]

 

See, I don't think they played well. They got beat at the point of attack a lot on Saturday and often played out of position based on Wyoming's defensive fronts.

 

Damon Benning and Matt Vrzal, exclusive of one another, said Nebraska's offensive line didn't play well Saturday, either.

 

My point is I don't think this line is overly good. I see a lot of steady, consistent players, but few game changers. I don't see a lot of all conference talent there. I haven't read or seen people praising this line very much.

 

So, we can talk about run game creativity all we want, and I think they could've done better Saturday. However, I also think they just need to get better than they are in general.

People have complained about our line quite a bit over the last few years despite often finishing as a Top 20 rushing offense and being in the same ballpark in Football Outsiders offensive line rankings. For example, in 2014, Football Outsiders ranked our line as #11. They were #29 last year so down the list a ways but still respectable. They don't have any stats up for this year yet but I would guess it'll be better than you think.

 

So I guess I don't put a lot of stock in people making general comments without really showing on film where they were missing blocks. It's too easy for people to get the feeling that the line isn't playing well just because the running game isn't breaking big plays. But there are a lot of variables that go into that - playcalling, blitzes, defensive alignments, other blockers (RBs, TEs, WRs), etc.

If they finish around #29 in Football Outsiders offensive line rankings again this year, I would consider that "above average," which is about where I said this line is playing - "average to above average."

 

As I've said, I just don't think they're overly good. That can be qualified and dissected in any number of ways, I guess. But, I equally don't put much stock in simply saying they need to 'run creatively.' That's an obtuse, surface-level response which ignores issues, in my opinion.

 

It's early in the season and I bet, by the end of the year, the line will be one of the more improved units on the team.

[Mavric]

If they finish around #29 in Football Outsiders offensive line rankings again this year, I would consider that "above average," which is about where I said this line is playing - "average to above average."

 

As I've said, I just don't think they're overly good. That can be qualified and dissected in any number of ways, I guess. But, I equally don't put much stock in simply saying they need to 'run creatively.' That's an obtuse, surface-level response which ignores issues, in my opinion.

 

It's early in the season and I bet, by the end of the year, the line will be one of the more improved units on the team.

I guess I don't know what you mean by that. I've provided a pretty specific definition - that we run a lot of straight-ahead running plays with no misdirection into the middle of the line - and provided quite a bit of evidence that is in fact what we are doing. I don't know what issues you think I'm ignoring?

 

How would you qualify your statement that the line isn't overly good?

[Guy Chamberlin]

I thought the offensive line has played pretty well both weeks. I saw a few good holes that weren't put to use, and some very open corners.

 

We were watching Carlos Hyde have a nice game for the 49ers Monday night, and there were a few key plays where you see the play is designed to go up the middle. Hyde stops for just a split second, recognizing the hole has closed, and then bounces to the outside for a good gain.

 

There's a crazy clip from last season where Imani Cross follows his blocks up the middle, completely ignoring a huge opening to the outside where he could have run for 30 yards untouched. I saw a couple similar situations with the Husker RBs already this season.

 

Hyde reminded me that the great running backs aren't always about power and speed. It's the guys with field vision and patience.

 

i.e. a lot of plays that are designed to go up the middle can leave the outside exposed. But it's up to the runner to make that call.

[cm husker]

 

See, I don't think they played well. They got beat at the point of attack a lot on Saturday and often played out of position based on Wyoming's defensive fronts.

 

Damon Benning and Matt Vrzal, exclusive of one another, said Nebraska's offensive line didn't play well Saturday, either.

 

My point is I don't think this line is overly good. I see a lot of steady, consistent players, but few game changers. I don't see a lot of all conference talent there. I haven't read or seen people praising this line very much.

 

So, we can talk about run game creativity all we want, and I think they could've done better Saturday. However, I also think they just need to get better than they are in general.

People have complained about our line quite a bit over the last few years despite often finishing as a Top 20 rushing offense and being in the same ballpark in Football Outsiders offensive line rankings. For example, in 2014, Football Outsiders ranked our line as #11. They were #29 last year so down the list a ways but still respectable. They don't have any stats up for this year yet but I would guess it'll be better than you think.

 

So I guess I don't put a lot of stock in people making general comments without really showing on film where they were missing blocks. It's too easy for people to get the feeling that the line isn't playing well just because the running game isn't breaking big plays. But there are a lot of variables that go into that - playcalling, blitzes, defensive alignments, other blockers (RBs, TEs, WRs), etc.

Spot on post.

 

Certain players and positions often catch the brunt of criticism (and the unwarranted praise) for production that may not be within their purview.

 

I think the OL at NU has been consistently underrated by our fans and some talking heads for a while now.

[cm husker]

I thought the offensive line has played pretty well both weeks. I saw a few good holes that weren't put to use, and some very open corners.

 

We were watching Carlos Hyde have a nice game for the 49ers Monday night, and there were a few key plays where you see the play is designed to go up the middle. Hyde stops for just a split second, recognizing the hole has closed, and then bounces to the outside for a good gain.

 

There's a crazy clip from last season where Imani Cross follows his blocks up the middle, completely ignoring a huge opening to the outside where he could have run for 30 yards untouched. I saw a couple similar situations with the Husker RBs already this season.

 

Hyde reminded me that the great running backs aren't always about power and speed. It's the guys with field vision and patience.

 

i.e. a lot of plays that are designed to go up the middle can leave the outside exposed. But it's up to the runner to make that call.

Another spot on post. I'll just say that talent is quite rare and it's why guys who can do it make a lot of money. I'd like a system that "cleans up" those reads (same argument I make for simplifying the QBs looks at the CFB level).

[I am I]

I think we got used to a 12-1600 yd back every year and that's a benchmark of great stats.

 

Our former running game was about deception and timing: traps, counters, options wherein 1 defender missed his key and we could break it. A lot of times, and I mean A LOT of times our fullback was stuffed or our QB ran out of bounds on an option where the defenders did their job and took away the QB and pitchman--for a Quarter or two.

 

Our running game now is much less deceptive and repetitive (waiting until they were pounded and then missed their assignment in the 3rd qtr after being sound in qtrs 1-2) then our previous running game.

 

It's why it's easy for coaches to abandon the running game because we don't wait for the defense to tire out or "out scheme" them. If we're not getting a great push or a great RB doesn't see all the holes, designed or not, we can just pass the ball for yardage, so they say.

 

It's a philosophy and an approach: patience, timing, scheme, and more patience. Sometimes it worked to perfection but we all remember getting STUFFED by faster more disciplined defenses plenty of times.

 

I'd like to see (since we'll never go back to a true trap/counter/option run based offense) a very creative and tricky run game as a base and a "dink and dunk" passing game; which is still ball control and "simple" on its reads but has the potential to really click and keep a defense completely off balance. Never relying fully on a single RB, QB, or WR, but definitely relying on a skilled and mature OL; along w coaches who stick to it as a lifestyle with the patience to allow execution without abandoning one facet of the offense.

[Enhance]

 

If they finish around #29 in Football Outsiders offensive line rankings again this year, I would consider that "above average," which is about where I said this line is playing - "average to above average."

 

As I've said, I just don't think they're overly good. That can be qualified and dissected in any number of ways, I guess. But, I equally don't put much stock in simply saying they need to 'run creatively.' That's an obtuse, surface-level response which ignores issues, in my opinion.

 

It's early in the season and I bet, by the end of the year, the line will be one of the more improved units on the team.

I guess I don't know what you mean by that. I've provided a pretty specific definition - that we run a lot of straight-ahead running plays with no misdirection into the middle of the line - and provided quite a bit of evidence that is in fact what we are doing. I don't know what issues you think I'm ignoring?

 

How would you qualify your statement that the line isn't overly good?

I have several times in this thread already - difficulty with blocking stunts and sometimes poor blocking at the point of the attack, which was particularly relevant in the Wyoming game. I don't think I'm saying anything Earth-shattering here. Does it mean they're messing up every play? Of course not.

 

I get the impression you think I'm saying this line is bad. All I've said is, in my opinion, we have an average to above average line. If I had to give it a letter grade then I'd say they're playing at about a C+ to B level so far this year.

 

We can talk about running creatively and doing any number of things, and yes, I think there's some validity to that opinion. But, I also think they could stand to improve on their more basic functions and execution. Simply 'running creatively' isn't going to address some of the things I think they still need to work on. Could it help? Of course. I have said time and again there's sound reason behind that train of thought.

[cm husker]

Running creatively helps a ton, because unless you're Suh, you often need tactical edge because your opponent is very similar to you.

 

When I watch our run game, I see very look that helps put our guys in a position of advantage (eg, angles of attack and numbers at point of attack).

 

The reads on run fits are way too easy for a defense.

[The Dude]

I thought the statue of liberty to the tight end was an especially creative way to run the ball.

[Kernal]

I'd like to see Ozigbo start because I would like for our gameplan to be pounding Oregon's defense into submission, and I believe Ozigbo is the back who best can do that (with a strong helping of the O-line, TEs, FBs and WRs). If the plan is to attack the edge then Newby is the better option. I'm fine with whoever the coaches decide best fits the plan.

[Mavric]

I thought the statue of liberty to the tight end was an especially creative way to run the ball.

It is true that we do a better job on running plays not to the running backs. The QB sweeps and counters work well. And the couple times we've run some end arounds - Carter and Westy so far this year - are nice. We just don't run nearly as many of those plays.

 

I'd just like to see it be a bigger part of the offense and actually give the RBs a chance to do some work.