Spring Practice - Offensive Line

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

 

 

 

DVD is either a troll or he needs to change his name to VHS.

I'll take 400 yds rushing on VHS over 169 yds on DVR. Hell 169 yds wasnt even a good day for Calvin Jones.

See whats hard for guys like us, is to see how far the program has fallen, and then you have guys who defend it. Like being a crappy version of 1994 Penn St. is something to aspire to. No thanks. That Never was the Nebraska way. At least not when we were playing like Champions.

The only thing I'm defending is the fact that the dominant teams in college football tend to have smashmouth running games, finesse passing games, and shutdown defenses. They don't feel obliged to choose one over the other.

 

This notion that Nebraska can return to greatness simply by calling 80% running plays like the good ol' days is nostalgia, not strategy.

 

There isn't a football coach -- including Mike Riley -- who won't keep running the ball for 400 yards a game if the defense lets him. But better teams don't allow you to run all over them -- which was true in Osborne's time, too. If you look back at Osborne's 25 years as HC, the scheme worked best with a shytload of talent on both sides of the ball.

Can you please drop the crazy, strawman argument that those of us who favor a physical, hard-nose, smashmouth style of offense where running the ball is the focus...

 

That we want Riley to be 80% run...and to call running plays up the middle without regard to what the defensive front is, or is doing? Thank you.

 

As I have stated in another thread, Riley's issue (despite his claims) is he simply doesn't believe in the running game. Now he can prove me wrong, but given Langsdorf's play-calling (and by extension Riley's) the past two years, we're only going to throw the ball more, not less, with the QBs we have now. I mean we actually have an OC in Langsdorf who said in quote to the media that he didn't think he could call the same running play twice in row.

 

Listen, I want Mike Riley to be successful. I want him to bring Nebraska back into the elite of college football. I'm just not convinced or believe he can do it with the weak sauce style of offense we've seen the last two years.

 

That's not to say we can't, offensively in terms of stats, resemble Clemson and get the job done, I'd just prefer to statistically, be closer to Ohio State in terms run versus pass in the year they won the national title.

 

What that means is, Riley and Langsdorf have to figure out how to incorporate mis-directions, counters, using lineman that can pull and trap, etc. Nebraska desperately needs variety in the running game. And why can't Riley have Wilbon and Bryant in the backfield at the same time? Why is it always a 1 back or 1 RB and a FB?

 

Like I said, I want Riley to win and there are lots of ways to do it. But if you're going to play the odds...Running the ball, playing tenacious defense, and being solid to great in the kicking game is a pretty good way to go about running a football team--at any level.

read the context bro. You clearly have a rational idea of where we would like to be in terms of rushing, balance, ect.

 

DVD on the other hand does not. 400 yards a game on the ground is not reasonable and would require running the ball 80% of the time or more. That was what Guy Chamberlin was saying, not that anyone who wants a smashed mouth attack feels this way. Read the thread man. All of this is directed at those who believe we have to get back to 400 yards a game on the ground and nothing else will do.

[Nebfanatic]

I think everyone in this thread agrees we need to do significantly better on the ground than we have so we can put that to rest.

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

 

 

DVD is either a troll or he needs to change his name to VHS.

I'll take 400 yds rushing on VHS over 169 yds on DVR. Hell 169 yds wasnt even a good day for Calvin Jones.

See whats hard for guys like us, is to see how far the program has fallen, and then you have guys who defend it. Like being a crappy version of 1994 Penn St. is something to aspire to. No thanks. That Never was the Nebraska way. At least not when we were playing like Champions.

The only thing I'm defending is the fact that the dominant teams in college football tend to have smashmouth running games, finesse passing games, and shutdown defenses. They don't feel obliged to choose one over the other.

 

This notion that Nebraska can return to greatness simply by calling 80% running plays like the good ol' days is nostalgia, not strategy.

 

There isn't a football coach -- including Mike Riley -- who won't keep running the ball for 400 yards a game if the defense lets him. But better teams don't allow you to run all over them -- which was true in Osborne's time, too. If you look back at Osborne's 25 years as HC, the scheme worked best with a shytload of talent on both sides of the ball.

Can you please drop the crazy, strawman argument that those of us who favor a physical, hard-nose, smashmouth style of offense where running the ball is the focus...

 

That we want Riley to be 80% run...and to call running plays up the middle without regard to what the defensive front is, or is doing? Thank you.

 

As I have stated in another thread, Riley's issue (despite his claims) is he simply doesn't believe in the running game. Now he can prove me wrong, but given Langsdorf's play-calling (and by extension Riley's) the past two years, we're only going to throw the ball more, not less, with the QBs we have now. I mean we actually have an OC in Langsdorf who said in quote to the media that he didn't think he could call the same running play twice in row.

 

Listen, I want Mike Riley to be successful. I want him to bring Nebraska back into the elite of college football. I'm just not convinced or believe he can do it with the weak sauce style of offense we've seen the last two years.

 

That's not to say we can't, offensively in terms of stats, resemble Clemson and get the job done, I'd just prefer to statistically, be closer to Ohio State in terms run versus pass in the year they won the national title.

 

What that means is, Riley and Langsdorf have to figure out how to incorporate mis-directions, counters, using lineman that can pull and trap, etc. Nebraska desperately needs variety in the running game. And why can't Riley have Wilbon and Bryant in the backfield at the same time? Why is it always a 1 back or 1 RB and a FB?

 

Like I said, I want Riley to win and there are lots of ways to do it. But if you're going to play the odds...Running the ball, playing tenacious defense, and being solid to great in the kicking game is a pretty good way to go about running a football team--at any level.

read the context bro. You clearly have a rational idea of where we would like to be in terms of rushing, balance, ect.

 

DVD on the other hand does not. 400 yards a game on the ground is not reasonable and would require running the ball 80% of the time or more. That was what Guy Chamberlin was saying, not that anyone who wants a smashed mouth attack feels this way. Read the thread man. All of this is directed at those who believe we have to get back to 400 yards a game on the ground and nothing else will do.

 

 

Seeing Nebraska get back to rushing for 4 bills a game is literally "porn" for me...

 

That being said, it's not mandatory. I'd personally be happy with a solid 250 per game rushing average and if it is higher...then break out the KY...

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

How would we get the same result or worse with almost the same line minus the weak link and adding 4 scholarship players to the depth chart?

because if you take the blinders off you will see that they are very marginal and that is being kind. quit making damn excuses yr after yr after yr .....................................................................................................................................................................................

 

 

You have a tendency to mistake "observations" for "excuses."

[Mavric]

[Enhance]

 

 

 

Nick Gates isn't a tough all conference caliber player? Tanner Farmer? We have the guys to make a jump. Last year the line played well at times. Look I understand there is concern but shouldn't there be a little optimism as well? This group, personell wise is in a better position than last year and that can't be argued. Doesn't that give anyone besides me any hope?

Been trying to push that for about two days. Don't waste your time.

My interpretation of your topic contributions thus far is you want people to be more optimistic about the offensive line, which is a fine thing to want, but it can't be forced on people. We've had several seasons in the last 10-15 years where we went in with varying levels of potential, only to see expectations (generally speaking) be unmet.

 

I'm hopeful this changes in 2017, but I'm not optimistic it will.

But I think the point I'm trying to make is we will be better than we were a year ago, something that I think I have legitimate reason to be optimistic about considering we were pretty bad at times a year ago and we are adding more than we are subtracting. To me that equals a jump and I don't think it's niave to believe that. Will we get to where we need to be? I don't know, but I doubt it. Will we improve a measurable amount over last year? The answer to me is an emphatic yes.

 

It's not that I find it naive to believe in or be optimistic about improvement. I think you and spurs are simply on the other side of the scale. I look at the talent/potential and that gives me hope. It does not, however, give me optimism.

 

For the sake of conversation, how would you personally quantify "measurable" improvement? What numbers or achievements are you setting as your base level goals for 2017?

[Nebfanatic]

Firstly, eye test. Are we able to dominate the line of scrimmage and push the D back consistently on run plays. If we are doing this along with pulling and trapping we are already better than last year. We have to get our YPC up. I would like to see us in the top 6 in the league in several rushing statistics (ypc, per game) we were 9th last year so it is going to take a noticeable difference to improve to that level. All of this coincides with scoring points and winning games. Obviously that can't be the only metric because there are other factors that play into those outcomes, but I think if we can improve our rushing attack to top 6 in the league it will go a long way in making those outcomes favorable for us.

 

I think it is a given our passing game will get better and that's less on the o line so I'm not as concerned with the passing stats as it relates to line improvement.

[Enhance]

Firstly, eye test. Are we able to dominate the line of scrimmage and push the D back consistently on run plays. If we are doing this along with pulling and trapping we are already better than last year. We have to get our YPC up. I would like to see us in the top 6 in the league in several rushing statistics (ypc, per game) we were 9th last year so it is going to take a noticeable difference to improve to that level. All of this coincides with scoring points and winning games. Obviously that can't be the only metric because there are other factors that play into those outcomes, but I think if we can improve our rushing attack to top 6 in the league it will go a long way in making those outcomes favorable for us.

 

I think it is a given our passing game will get better and that's less on the o line so I'm not as concerned with the passing stats as it relates to line improvement.

I can certainly agree with your YPC opinion. I think it's pretty critical for us to be at least in the Top 6 in rushing offense if we are to consider the line improved, and if we want to sniff anywhere close to a conference title. Finishing 7th or 8th, while technically an improvement, is not good enough.

 

The eye test is also pretty crucial - former linemen and people knowledgeable about line technique have been pretty critical of our performances over the last several years, including the Riley era. I'd like to see a more technique savvy line.

[Saunders]

» Four: Teams from Power Five conferences that ran for less than 170 yards per game last season and still won nine games. The four: Clemson, Nebraska, Miami and Florida. When you lower the bar to less than 150 rushing yards per game, there is just one: Florida.

 

The Gators finished fifth nationally in total defense and sixth nationally in scoring defense. Incidentally, Clemson finished 10th in scoring defense and Miami finished 18th. Both were top-20 total defenses, too. If you’re going to struggle to run the ball in a Power Five league, you had better play great defense. (Or have an NFL quarterback.)

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-huskers-still-have-to-identify-top-playmakers-but-good/article_f9e44089-6576-5065-996e-e7178b053733.html

 

[GBRFAN]

It looks like we are going to get our yards in three different areas:

40% rush

30% downfield passing

30% lateral passing (similar to a pitch play in old option days).

 

Are we going to look at that as 40% rushing and 60% passing? or 70% rushing and 30% passing?

 

doesn't seem like it matters as long as the offense puts up more yards and points while keeping the D off the field.

[Huskers44]

It looks like we are going to get our yards in three different areas:

40% rush

30% downfield passing

30% lateral passing (similar to a pitch play in old option days).

 

Are we going to look at that as 40% rushing and 60% passing? or 70% rushing and 30% passing?

 

doesn't seem like it matters as long as the offense puts up more yards and points while keeping the D off the field.

I'm a fan of those lateral passes especially since we have a QB who can hit them quick in stride. Gives us a play of having a guy in space and we have plenty of speedy playmakers who could make something happen. (Wilbon, Speilman, Bryant, DPE, Mazour, hell even add Stan take him 1 on 1 with a corner he's got a mean stiff arm)

[Mavric]

A former Nebraska offensive lineman told me Sunday he could tell before the snap, with 90-percent accuracy, whether the Huskers were going to run the ball or pass it based on the linemen's stances. They were "flat-backed" on run plays (rear ends up) and set back a bit more in their stances (rear ends lower) on pass plays. I'll leave it at that. But watch the replay. He has a point.

 

LJS

[Decked]

Hmm...don't like the sound of that

[GBRFAN]

decoy!!!

[BIG ERN]

Coach Cav knows his days are numbered with poor o-line play this year. Simple as that