Spring Practice - Running Backs

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Davis telling me things I already knew. Wilbon should have already been receiving more carries.

I know. I remember during the BYU game that he was the best RB on the field that day and I wasn't the only one who felt that as so many others in my section thought so too.

Then after that game it's like Wilbon fell off the face of the earth

The myth of the Wilbon/BYU game continues to grow

6 carries for 14 yards (long of 7 yards)

2 receptions for 28 yards (long of 14 yards)

Wilbon - 2.3 ypc

Newby - 4.3 ypc

Cross 4.9 ypc

 

We'll, third best. But that's still pretty good!

Someone always has to be that douche and bring up irrelevant stats. I mean hell we have the stays after 1 game so I guess we just shouldn't play the rest. You can't even argue that if Wilbon isn't the best back we have as a runner. Sure he has stuff he can work on but he's definitely our best runner. And the only way he's going to be a complete back is reps.

I can't even argue that Wilbon is our best back? What?

 

Each of the last 2 years he has been passed by a true freshman on the depth chart. Both those guys that passed him are still on the team. So yes, it is arguable that he is the best back on the team.

 

I agree with Huskers44's opinion that Wilbon is the best back. He is more elusive, quicker, and our best playmaker as a ball carrier with it in his hands.

 

He can be passed on the depth by five or six backs, for one or two reasons that we are not entitled to know (past or present). But I don't think it has anything to do with running the ball. He's too natural and fluid to get bumped down for that. Just calling it as I see it.

 

 

So what you are saying is if we run 100% of the time out of a single back set - he is our guy?

 

Maybe I am too old, but I am not a fan of single back sets.

[84HuskerLaw]

A one back 'backfield' (excluding the QB of course) is NOT an effective run formation in general and will not produce the kind of powerful run 'identity' that Nebraska needs to re-establish itself with in the future. You can keep one back in the backfrield primarily as a safety blocker and relief valve type receiver in the passing game but those "h backs" and other names for slot receivers and other unorthodox RBs positioning and alighments are not the same as a second true RB behind the QB within the pocket really. You need multiple ball carriers in position to attack into the line of scrimmage and to block for each other as well as to fake to in the course of both run and pass plays.

 

Scat backs just don't pose the threat to push the pile and or block the LBs and safeties so the run game is more of a complement to the pass game than in integral or essential element of the offense. The run game becomes the side dish versus the main course so to speak. You need to be gaining 250 yard on the ground and 250 in the air to have a powerful and effective and balanced attack. If you slip, it needs to be in the air and not in the run yardage really. I've always felt run yards count double of pass yards in terms of points and in some kind of weighted comparison. That is, a team that gains 500 yards passing will not be as dominant as a team that runs for 500 yards. Points averaged will be significantly higher for the running oriented teams and winning margin as well. I have not seen reall stats but I believe the numbers will really bear this out.

 

A team that runs for 500 yards per game will outscore a team that throws for 500 per game. I believe a team that runs for 400 and throws for 100 would slightly outscore the 500 run ypg. And 300 rush and 200 pass would be slightly higher than the 400/100 and 500/0. But I believe the numbers would turn the other way below 300 and by time you get to 200 rush and 300 pass, the scoring will have fallen off dramatically. 100 run and 400 pass will see a win / loss ratio dropping into the 65% or so. Again, I can't cite hard stats but I am confident if the research was done, it would be borne out.

 

We appear to be building a team that will be in the 175 run and 275 yard pass ratio. This may not produce much better than a 65% win / loss percentage and that will be 'ify' in the years with tough schedules.

I will prefer it if we find 275 run and 225 passing or more. That will get us 11 wins a year and we'll all be much happier.

[LumberJackSker]

A one back 'backfield' (excluding the QB of course) is NOT an effective run formation in general and will not produce the kind of powerful run 'identity' that Nebraska needs to re-establish itself with in the future. You can keep one back in the backfrield primarily as a safety blocker and relief valve type receiver in the passing game but those "h backs" and other names for slot receivers and other unorthodox RBs positioning and alighments are not the same as a second true RB behind the QB within the pocket really. You need multiple ball carriers in position to attack into the line of scrimmage and to block for each other as well as to fake to in the course of both run and pass plays.

 

Scat backs just don't pose the threat to push the pile and or block the LBs and safeties so the run game is more of a complement to the pass game than in integral or essential element of the offense. The run game becomes the side dish versus the main course so to speak. You need to be gaining 250 yard on the ground and 250 in the air to have a powerful and effective and balanced attack. If you slip, it needs to be in the air and not in the run yardage really. I've always felt run yards count double of pass yards in terms of points and in some kind of weighted comparison. That is, a team that gains 500 yards passing will not be as dominant as a team that runs for 500 yards. Points averaged will be significantly higher for the running oriented teams and winning margin as well. I have not seen reall stats but I believe the numbers will really bear this out.

 

A team that runs for 500 yards per game will outscore a team that throws for 500 per game. I believe a team that runs for 400 and throws for 100 would slightly outscore the 500 run ypg. And 300 rush and 200 pass would be slightly higher than the 400/100 and 500/0. But I believe the numbers would turn the other way below 300 and by time you get to 200 rush and 300 pass, the scoring will have fallen off dramatically. 100 run and 400 pass will see a win / loss ratio dropping into the 65% or so. Again, I can't cite hard stats but I am confident if the research was done, it would be borne out.

 

We appear to be building a team that will be in the 175 run and 275 yard pass ratio. This may not produce much better than a 65% win / loss percentage and that will be 'ify' in the years with tough schedules.

I will prefer it if we find 275 run and 225 passing or more. That will get us 11 wins a year and we'll all be much happier.

so the only need to average 500 yards a game to win. You have very low expectations i say at least 750 or no way we are over .500

[Making Chimichangas]

LumberJackSker said: so the only need to average 500 yards a game to win. You have very low expectations i say at least 750 or no way we are over .500

 

I get what you're saying, but a quick look at 2016 stats show that 70 out of 128 (54.6%) teams were able to average at least 400 yards of offense per game.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/yardsPerGame

 

So while demanding 500 yards of total offense per game might seem high, truth is, 36 out of those 70 teams averaged 450+ so it is definitely an achievable goal.

 

(Although points ultimately matter much more than yards, obviously.)

[LumberJackSker]

LumberJackSker said: so the only need to average 500 yards a game to win. You have very low expectations i say at least 750 or no way we are over .500

 

I get what you're saying, but a quick look at 2016 stats show that 70 out of 128 (54.6%) teams were able to average at least 400 yards of offense per game.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/total/sort/yardsPerGame

 

So while demanding 500 yards of total offense per game might seem high, truth is, 36 out of those 70 teams averaged 450+ so it is definitely an achievable goal.

 

(Although points ultimately matter much more than yards, obviously.)

i think people need to calm down a bit on what to expect from this offense i know we have a different qb but that doesn't automatically mean there will be a light and day difference just because

[Infinity140]

Completion % will go up doesnt anyone on here bet on sports

[zoogs]

At Nebraska, RB2 is the most popular player on the team.

[Red Five]

At Nebraska, RB2 RB4 is the most popular player on the team.

 

fixed it for ya

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

At Nebraska, RB2 RB4 is the most popular player on the team.

fixed it for ya

Why isn't Adam Taylor starting!?

[84HuskerLaw]

 

A one back 'backfield' (excluding the QB of course) is NOT an effective run formation in general and will not produce the kind of powerful run 'identity' that Nebraska needs to re-establish itself with in the future. You can keep one back in the backfrield primarily as a safety blocker and relief valve type receiver in the passing game but those "h backs" and other names for slot receivers and other unorthodox RBs positioning and alighments are not the same as a second true RB behind the QB within the pocket really. You need multiple ball carriers in position to attack into the line of scrimmage and to block for each other as well as to fake to in the course of both run and pass plays.

 

Scat backs just don't pose the threat to push the pile and or block the LBs and safeties so the run game is more of a complement to the pass game than in integral or essential element of the offense. The run game becomes the side dish versus the main course so to speak. You need to be gaining 250 yard on the ground and 250 in the air to have a powerful and effective and balanced attack. If you slip, it needs to be in the air and not in the run yardage really. I've always felt run yards count double of pass yards in terms of points and in some kind of weighted comparison. That is, a team that gains 500 yards passing will not be as dominant as a team that runs for 500 yards. Points averaged will be significantly higher for the running oriented teams and winning margin as well. I have not seen reall stats but I believe the numbers will really bear this out.

 

A team that runs for 500 yards per game will outscore a team that throws for 500 per game. I believe a team that runs for 400 and throws for 100 would slightly outscore the 500 run ypg. And 300 rush and 200 pass would be slightly higher than the 400/100 and 500/0. But I believe the numbers would turn the other way below 300 and by time you get to 200 rush and 300 pass, the scoring will have fallen off dramatically. 100 run and 400 pass will see a win / loss ratio dropping into the 65% or so. Again, I can't cite hard stats but I am confident if the research was done, it would be borne out.

 

We appear to be building a team that will be in the 175 run and 275 yard pass ratio. This may not produce much better than a 65% win / loss percentage and that will be 'ify' in the years with tough schedules.

I will prefer it if we find 275 run and 225 passing or more. That will get us 11 wins a year and we'll all be much happier.

so the only need to average 500 yards a game to win. You have very low expectations i say at least 750 or no way we are over .500

 

yes, that is what I am saying. Offensive numbers in the 300s won't cut it. The low 400s won't cut it in the big games either.

[PaulCrewe]

So much drug usage on the board these days.

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

 

A one back 'backfield' (excluding the QB of course) is NOT an effective run formation in general and will not produce the kind of powerful run 'identity' that Nebraska needs to re-establish itself with in the future. You can keep one back in the backfrield primarily as a safety blocker and relief valve type receiver in the passing game but those "h backs" and other names for slot receivers and other unorthodox RBs positioning and alighments are not the same as a second true RB behind the QB within the pocket really. You need multiple ball carriers in position to attack into the line of scrimmage and to block for each other as well as to fake to in the course of both run and pass plays.

 

Scat backs just don't pose the threat to push the pile and or block the LBs and safeties so the run game is more of a complement to the pass game than in integral or essential element of the offense. The run game becomes the side dish versus the main course so to speak. You need to be gaining 250 yard on the ground and 250 in the air to have a powerful and effective and balanced attack. If you slip, it needs to be in the air and not in the run yardage really. I've always felt run yards count double of pass yards in terms of points and in some kind of weighted comparison. That is, a team that gains 500 yards passing will not be as dominant as a team that runs for 500 yards. Points averaged will be significantly higher for the running oriented teams and winning margin as well. I have not seen reall stats but I believe the numbers will really bear this out.

 

A team that runs for 500 yards per game will outscore a team that throws for 500 per game. I believe a team that runs for 400 and throws for 100 would slightly outscore the 500 run ypg. And 300 rush and 200 pass would be slightly higher than the 400/100 and 500/0. But I believe the numbers would turn the other way below 300 and by time you get to 200 rush and 300 pass, the scoring will have fallen off dramatically. 100 run and 400 pass will see a win / loss ratio dropping into the 65% or so. Again, I can't cite hard stats but I am confident if the research was done, it would be borne out.

 

We appear to be building a team that will be in the 175 run and 275 yard pass ratio. This may not produce much better than a 65% win / loss percentage and that will be 'ify' in the years with tough schedules.

I will prefer it if we find 275 run and 225 passing or more. That will get us 11 wins a year and we'll all be much happier.

so the only need to average 500 yards a game to win. You have very low expectations i say at least 750 or no way we are over .500

yes, that is what I am saying. Offensive numbers in the 300s won't cut it. The low 400s won't cut it in the big games either.

I would argue the low 400s will cut it if your defense holds the opponent to 250. Mostly passing, because I do agree on your assessment of value between running and passing yards to a degree.

[RedDenver]

I'd argue the number of yards is meaningless if you outscore the opponent.

[Making Chimichangas]

I'd argue the number of yards is meaningless if you outscore the opponent.

 

True. But there is consistent statistical correlation between higher yardage output and higher points scored.

 

Yeah you can win a knuckle-dragging brawl by playing defense, but long term, that's not a recipe for success

[RedDenver]

 

I'd argue the number of yards is meaningless if you outscore the opponent.

 

True. But there is consistent statistical correlation between higher yardage output and higher points scored.

 

Yeah you can win a knuckle-dragging brawl by playing defense, but long term, that's not a recipe for success

 

Playing defense isn't a recipe for success?