OWH Pick Six Podcast 4/18 - Spring Observations

[ColoradoHusk]

Be thick, go right ahead but this is what we are going to do. It doesn't mean we will pass more than we run necessarily. It is effective and has been proven by many many offenses. So you guys can bash on that philosophy all you want to because clearly nothing good said about it will get through.

I honestly don't really care if Langsdorf throws every single play, as long as NU wins. I just want the wins. If that means Lee is throwing for 500 yards, and NU is winning 63-10 every game, and Lee turns himself into the #1 NFL pick in 2018, that would be awesome!!!

 

I am sure Langsdorf and Riley are a lot smarter at football than I am (or they are great con men). Personally, I think their offensive philosophy has limitations in the college game, but that's just my opinion. Riley isn't going to call me up and ask for my opinion on their offense. I think the offense will not be very effective in the long-term if they cannot run the ball. In order to run the ball effectively long-term, the o-line needs to improve, as do the running backs. If there are teams that can stop Langsdorf's run game with their d-line and 1 LB, they can sit back with 6 or 7 guys in coverage. No matter how great the passing offense is, it will not "open up the run game" if the o-line can't even dominate guys on one-on-one blocks.

[Nebfanatic]

 

 

Be thick, go right ahead but this is what we are going to do. It doesn't mean we will pass more than we run necessarily. It is effective and has been proven by many many offenses. So you guys can bash on that philosophy all you want to because clearly nothing good said about it will get through.

I honestly don't really care if Langsdorf throws every single play, as long as NU wins. I just want the wins. If that means Lee is throwing for 500 yards, and NU is winning 63-10 every game, and Lee turns himself into the #1 NFL pick in 2018, that would be awesome!!!

 

I am sure Langsdorf and Riley are a lot smarter at football than I am (or they are great con men). Personally, I think their offensive philosophy has limitations in the college game, but that's just my opinion. Riley isn't going to call me up and ask for my opinion on their offense. I think the offense will not be very effective in the long-term if they cannot run the ball. In order to run the ball effectively long-term, the o-line needs to improve, as do the running backs. If there are teams that can stop Langsdorf's run game with their d-line and 1 LB, they can sit back with 6 or 7 guys in coverage. No matter how great the passing offense is, it will not "open up the run game" if the o-line can't even dominate guys on one-on-one blocks.

considering last year teams would put 8 or 9 in the box because they knew we couldn't throw I would say the scenario you just laid out already opens up the running game. It will definitely help our running game if there are less people in the immediate area to block. I'm not contending our running game will suddenly transform into one of the best in the nation just because we can pass the ball. The number one component in our improvement in the running game is the development of the O line. They dictate everything. But to say a dangerous passing game won't make it easier on the line when we do run the ball I think is a tad ignorant.

 

 

That being said I understand where you are coming from and I think we are vectors on different planes here. When I say open up the running game I should say create more room for the running game.

And I think on that we can agree. Better passing isn't the cure for our running game, better line play is. But better passing will allow our running game more opportunities to be successful, if the lineman do their job

[Caliborn72]

Not a good sign, especially because I'm fully prepared to be patient with the defense. Switching to a 3-4 is incredibly hard unless you already have the bodies for it. Diaco is a mad hatter type who I fully trust, but I think we see a major improvement in '18 when everyone in the front 7 adds more weight and familiarity with the system. Currently though, I think the DLine is going to have a tough time for much of the season.

 

Which is a-okay, as long as the offense improves. Bummer to hear some of these question marks at a time when it's acceptable to be given doses of koolaide.

[NUinID]

 

 

Be thick, go right ahead but this is what we are going to do. It doesn't mean we will pass more than we run necessarily. It is effective and has been proven by many many offenses. So you guys can bash on that philosophy all you want to because clearly nothing good said about it will get through.

I honestly don't really care if Langsdorf throws every single play, as long as NU wins. I just want the wins. If that means Lee is throwing for 500 yards, and NU is winning 63-10 every game, and Lee turns himself into the #1 NFL pick in 2018, that would be awesome!!!

 

I am sure Langsdorf and Riley are a lot smarter at football than I am (or they are great con men). Personally, I think their offensive philosophy has limitations in the college game, but that's just my opinion. Riley isn't going to call me up and ask for my opinion on their offense. I think the offense will not be very effective in the long-term if they cannot run the ball. In order to run the ball effectively long-term, the o-line needs to improve, as do the running backs. If there are teams that can stop Langsdorf's run game with their d-line and 1 LB, they can sit back with 6 or 7 guys in coverage. No matter how great the passing offense is, it will not "open up the run game" if the o-line can't even dominate guys on one-on-one blocks.

considering last year teams would put 8 or 9 in the box because they knew we couldn't throw I would say the scenario you just laid out already opens up the running game. It will definitely help our running game if there are less people in the immediate area to block. I'm not contending our running game will suddenly transform into one of the best in the nation just because we can pass the ball. The number one component in our improvement in the running game is the development of the O line. They dictate everything. But to say a dangerous passing game won't make it easier on the line when we do run the ball I think is a tad ignorant.

 

 

That being said I understand where you are coming from and I think we are vectors on different planes here. When I say open up the running game I should say create more room for the running game.

And I think on that we can agree. Better passing isn't the cure for our running game, better line play is. But better passing will allow our running game more opportunities to be successful, if the lineman do their job

 

 

Very well put. Nebraska wants to run run the ball well and the offensive line definitely needs to get better. I just think Sam M's reasoning in the pod cast is flawed. To say they won't have a strong run game because he thinks the linemen don't look like Wisconsin's linemen is simplistic. I am not sure MR is looking for anymore than 175 or so a game anyway. He wants to throw the ball and he wants to be efficient doing it.

[zoogs]

I think you're seeing 150 as automatic and lower bound and I don't think that's really the case. Let's say a *consistent* 150: this is running 30 times a game with a 5.0 ypc -- factoring in sacks, maybe more like 35+ runs a game around 4.5 to 5 ypc. A team that can do this has a reliable running game that it can lean on whenever it needs to.

 

(An inconsistent 150, the kind where they go for 300 on some bad teams in a few blowout wins and then abandon the run in games that count, that's more likely...)

 

If we don't have the backs or line for that, then what I think we're looking at is a team that is forced to abandon the run and lean on its passing game. Such a team could easily be a 125 rushing ypg, sub-or-near 400 team on the year.

 

It's not terrible but it portends a fairly middling 4-to-6 loss kind of season. Given our long history of basically being in this area, I don't think that should be a shock. In short, we need to see this program get better than that and *so far* there's not too much evidence to suggest the leap happens this year.

[MyBloodIsRed16]

So here is an example of a play we will see plenty this season that will open up the run and pas. The quick swing pass we saw numerous times at the spring game. I know some guys will think it's a check down but that's the first read. Two basic ways to guard it. Have you lb bump out a little and take him which will open up the run after we complete it a few times. Or you can run cover 2 and have your corner coming up to guaRd it, which puts more pressure on your safety if we run multiple vertical routes and that's exactly what we will do. It's just as effective as if Lee were to turn to his right and pictch the ball out there. Defenses have to respect it when they see the back go out there. Wasn't quite as effective last year because our qb couldn't hit our backs in stride..... pass to set up the run...and pass

[84HuskerLaw]

Rushing yards are more valuable and teams win more if they run the ball better than their opponent as compared to passing yards. Throwing for 300 and running for 150 might add up to 450 yards of total offense but I believe the statistical odds of winning are significantly higher for the team with 300 yards rushing and 150 passing. Passing the ball to advance the ball down the field is somewhat like shooting long distance 2s and 3 point buckets in basketball. There is the saying "Live by the jump shot - die by the jump shot!" You need that inside game in basketball to win titles just as you need that run game in football. In the long run, you win more if you run the ball better than the opponent, all other things being equal.

 

All this being said, Nebraska will win, or not, based on a combination of outcomes in ALL three major areas of the game: offense, defense and special teams. Our problems in recent years have NOT all been because our O line was not playing very well. Often the O line did not play very well but neither did our defense and, frankly, in my view, our special teams have been very poor, at best. We were above average in field goal kicking and of course our punting was attrocious last year. Sam Fultz was exceptional, most of the time, but had his share of less than stellar kicks mixed in, all too often kicking beyond our coverage or out of the end zone making his kicking distance look great but net punting, at times, not so much. Our kick coverage was 'average'. Our kick off returns and punt returns have been nothing short of awful with a brief exception for DPE his freshman year.

 

To win 10 or 11 games and or win a conference championship, Nebraska MUST win the offense, defense and special teams play in nearly all those games as we are NOT going to simply show up and win many games just because we are bigger, stronger, faster, etc than our opponent. We might say that in 4 games this year but in another 4 we may only be roughly equal and the remainder, many would say, we are LESS talented (meaning bigger, stronger, faster, etc).

 

Going all the way back to Solich's last couple seasons, our punter has had to be our "MVP" all too often and we need Alex Henery or somebody to save the day with 57 yard last second kicks. While we need an excellent punter, place kicker, etc, we need more than just a couple strong, consistant, reliable kickers. We need the entire team working well in all phases. The 'team' has to win as a team - not just the O line. O line is very important, but it is only a fraction of the entire picture.

[Moiraine]

Last year we averaged 155/game. Toss out the 292 yard performance vs Fresno in game 1 (we only threw 13 passes), and we averaged 144/game.

 

We lost a mobile QB that escaped a few sacks (negative rushing yards) each game. And all spring long we have heard grumblings about the OL not being up to par.

 

So is 125/game that far fetched? I don't think so.

 

You can't pick and choose which observations to use like that. If you wanna do that, remove the max yardage game from every season.

[Making Chimichangas]

Last year we averaged 155/game. Toss out the 292 yard performance vs Fresno in game 1 (we only threw 13 passes), and we averaged 144/game.

 

We lost a mobile QB that escaped a few sacks (negative rushing yards) each game. And all spring long we have heard grumblings about the OL not being up to par.

 

So is 125/game that far fetched? I don't think so.

Nebraska had 2,199 rushing yards last season. Divided by 13 games, that 169.2 per game.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing

 

Granted, there's not a whole lot of separation from 155 to 169 per game, just wanted to make sure the facts are correct.

 

For the record: Clemson won a national title averaging 169.7 yards per game last year. Of course they had a multi-year starter/stud at QB and Nebraska right now isn't even remotely in the same ballpark in terms of QB. Point is, winning a national title while rushing the ball so poorly is possible--it's just not likely.

 

In reference to your comment, Nebraska averaging 125 yards rushing per game in 2017 is improbable...but not impossible.

[lo country]

IIRC, our record is significantly better when we have 200+ rushing yards per game (Riley is 8-0). Riley, prior to OSU, was 9-0 when out rushing opponents.....Under Bo, over 200 and the W-L record was significantly better. Running the ball is demoralizing, punishing and a kick in the balls..... Getting the ball rammed down your throat breaks the will of many teams.

 

I don't think any negative comments, at this juncture, are out of line. We have, and continue to, struggle against teams that are "equal or better". When you look at the recruit rankings, Iowa and Wisky in particular, there should be no reason we drop game against them. Better coaching? Scheme? Development?

 

Bottom line, wood shedding teams we should, beating teams we "shouldn't" and not getting boat raced would stop the vast majority of comments IMHO.

 

I'll admit, I wasn't a fan of the Riley hire. BUT I have to give him his props with firing friends who were bringing the program down, getting some acclaimed hires to replace them, and bringing in some hella talent.......He says the right things and more importantly is doing them.

 

Having a QB who actually repeatedly make a D pay with his arm will pay dividends. For too many years, we have had teams simply stack the box and make our RB playing QB beat them with their arm. That obviously hasn't worked for us in a long time.....We now have 4 guys, who at least in spring, can long the rock well. More importantly, getting into receivers in stride to allow some much needed YAC. Unsure how to find the stats, but I'd bet NU has one of the lowest YAC in FBS....I am also confident that we will see much more offense, not because we have "their guys", but because we actually have enough depth and quality at the QB position to not have to call plays with the intent of protecting the QB.

 

Lastly, the OL needs to take all this negativity, doubt and weak link in the chain crap and come out this fall and prove the doubters wrong. Us it as motivation. Be embarrassed that they complained about practices last year. Play pi$$ed off, mean and nasty....

[Red Five]

 

Last year we averaged 155/game. Toss out the 292 yard performance vs Fresno in game 1 (we only threw 13 passes), and we averaged 144/game.

 

We lost a mobile QB that escaped a few sacks (negative rushing yards) each game. And all spring long we have heard grumblings about the OL not being up to par.

 

So is 125/game that far fetched? I don't think so.

You can't pick and choose which observations to use like that. If you wanna do that, remove the max yardage game from every season.

I'm not comparing 2016 to any other season. Just pointing out that 1 game was a complete outlier in terms of play calls and production.

[Red Five]

 

 

Last year we averaged 155/game. Toss out the 292 yard performance vs Fresno in game 1 (we only threw 13 passes), and we averaged 144/game.

 

We lost a mobile QB that escaped a few sacks (negative rushing yards) each game. And all spring long we have heard grumblings about the OL not being up to par.

 

So is 125/game that far fetched? I don't think so.

Nebraska had 2,199 rushing yards last season. Divided by 13 games, that 169.2 per game.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing

 

Granted, there's not a whole lot of separation from 155 to 169 per game, just wanted to make sure the facts are correct.

 

For the record: Clemson won a national title averaging 169.7 yards per game last year. Of course they had a multi-year starter/stud at QB and Nebraska right now isn't even remotely in the same ballpark in terms of QB. Point is, winning a national title while rushing the ball so poorly is possible--it's just not likely.

 

In reference to your comment, Nebraska averaging 125 yards rushing per game in 2017 is improbable...but not impossible.

Hmmm... I'm on mobile now, so can't check my math. I guess I could have screwed it up. Could it be one number included sacks and one excludes?

[Making Chimichangas]

 

 

Last year we averaged 155/game. Toss out the 292 yard performance vs Fresno in game 1 (we only threw 13 passes), and we averaged 144/game.

 

We lost a mobile QB that escaped a few sacks (negative rushing yards) each game. And all spring long we have heard grumblings about the OL not being up to par.

 

So is 125/game that far fetched? I don't think so.

Nebraska had 2,199 rushing yards last season. Divided by 13 games, that 169.2 per game.

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/team/_/stat/rushing

 

Granted, there's not a whole lot of separation from 155 to 169 per game, just wanted to make sure the facts are correct.

 

For the record: Clemson won a national title averaging 169.7 yards per game last year. Of course they had a multi-year starter/stud at QB and Nebraska right now isn't even remotely in the same ballpark in terms of QB. Point is, winning a national title while rushing the ball so poorly is possible--it's just not likely.

 

In reference to your comment, Nebraska averaging 125 yards rushing per game in 2017 is improbable...but not impossible.

Hmmm... I'm on mobile now, so can't check my math. I guess I could have screwed it up. Could it be one number included sacks and one excludes?

 

 

I don't think so. I linked directly to ESPN's stats page.

[zoogs]

170 sounds plausible. Keep in mind that last year we had a passing game that was difficult to trust, and a running QB. We're likely to run the ball less if the running game is similarly ineffective.

[Guy Chamberlin]

You don't throw out games like Fresno State to make the point. That kinda IS the point. We ran often and better against teams we could dominate, and less better against the more elite defenses in the second half of the season. We had trouble in every phase of the game against better teams, which shouldn't be surprising, but you can't say we lost because we didn't run the ball more often.

 

There were only three games when Nebraska ran less than 40 times last year. Two of them were losses. And I'm not sure you can blame Ohio State and Iowa on the playcalling. Daring Tommy Armstrong to beat you with his arm isn't a bad bet for a team with defensive talent.

 

I don't see any reason why Nebraska shouldn't be better than last year.