22 - 9 - 58%

[yort2000]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

There is no reason why they couldn't have called more outside runs with RBs the last two years.  You can hope it changes, but I don't know why it would be expected to change.

 

Langs has said that we are an Inside Zone team.  He has shown that to be true with the plays he's actually called during the games.  Perhaps he will have a change of heart.  But I'm not holding my breath.  

 

It is possible for the passing game to open up the running game to some degree.  But there are at least three problems with that line of thinking in our case:

1. To do that you have to pass more, generally speaking.  A defense isn't going to make large changes to something that hurts them a few plays per game.  You have to consistantly do it.  Thus, that would lead to more passing.
2. If you're better at doing something, why wouldn't you do more of that thing?  That is only common sense.  Two years ago we threw it 35 times per game despite completing a poor percentage and nearly leading the country in interceptions.  If we complete a higher percentage and throw fewer INTs, why wouldn't we throw it more?
3. This is the biggest one that none of the "we can't run the ball" people like to acknowledge.  The argument that the passing game can open up the running game is ignoring the type of personnel that we like to us.  We run a lot of 21 and 12 personnel.  That's nine offensive players in the formation with only two wide receivers.  There is no reason for the defense to have fewer than seven in the box against those formation and they can have an eighth close by.  That's not "stacking the box" - that is correctly aligning to our formation.  If there are 7-8 guys in the box and you're an Inside Zone team, it is extremely tough to create much space to run in.  There are simply too many bodies to get in the way.  That's just the simple math of how we are lining up.

It is also interesting which parts of things you like to focus on.  You claim we saw more outside running in the spring game so we should expect more of that going forward.  That's possible - I'd have to go back and watch more.  But one game vs. two years of history isn't exactly conclusive. 

 

We also saw 95 passes compared to 40 rushing attempts.  Does that mean that we should expect 70% pass plays going forward?

 

 

1. Jet Sweep

2. It is not about passing to set up the run or running to set up the pass, it is about being adept enough at both that you can put pressure on the defense by either running or passing so that they have to play you honest.  And, if they are overloading one way or the other you have to be able to make them pay and pay hard.  No matter what, you have to execute.

 

 

[ScottyIce]

6 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

This is a question discussed on the radio this morning.

 

I think they got these numbers because those were Thorson's numbers from last year and people think he's a good QB.

 

But, the question is, would you be happy if those were Lee's numbers this season?

 

Honestly? Absolutely not. Unless he has like 15 more passes that take us to the GL and RB's get those TD's.

 

For me to be happy, he needs to lead us to 9 wins +. That's most important.

 

For me to say Holy sh#t this guy is good?

30 - 7 - 62%

[ScottyIce]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

What difference does it make that they had one guy run for 1,500 yards and 15 TDs instead of multiple players like Nebraska that actually run for more?

 

Lol because STP hates Nebraska and loves to peck at them about anything he possibly can.

[NUinID]

15 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

 

1. Jet Sweep

2. It is not about passing to set up the run or running to set up the pass, it is about being adept enough at both that you can put pressure on the defense by either running or passing so that they have to play you honest.  And, if they are overloading one way or the other you have to be able to make them pay and pay hard.  No matter what, you have to execute.

 

 

This is the most succinct explanation so far about the run and pass.  Very well done.  

[ScottyIce]

55 minutes ago, DrunkOffPunch said:

I also think a problem Langs has with the run game is getting too cute. I don't remember the specifics but in one of the games Wilbon gets one of his very limited carries, busts off a nice run for 3rd and short, and he gets pulled for Ozigbo and they run an outside pitch to the left side. Why? The RB rotation at times is also questionable.

 

Youre right, but I think he probably does that to keep defenses guessing.

 

Example: If wilbon only runs outside, Ozigbo inside and Bryant runs draws and screens, it'd be pretty predictable right?

[NUinID]

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

There is no reason why they couldn't have called more outside runs with RBs the last two years.  You can hope it changes, but I don't know why it would be expected to change.

 

Langs has said that we are an Inside Zone team.  He has shown that to be true with the plays he's actually called during the games.  Perhaps he will have a change of heart.  But I'm not holding my breath.  

 

It is possible for the passing game to open up the running game to some degree.  But there are at least three problems with that line of thinking in our case:

1. To do that you have to pass more, generally speaking.  A defense isn't going to make large changes to something that hurts them a few plays per game.  You have to consistantly do it.  Thus, that would lead to more passing.
2. If you're better at doing something, why wouldn't you do more of that thing?  That is only common sense.  Two years ago we threw it 35 times per game despite completing a poor percentage and nearly leading the country in interceptions.  If we complete a higher percentage and throw fewer INTs, why wouldn't we throw it more?
3. This is the biggest one that none of the "we can't run the ball" people like to acknowledge.  The argument that the passing game can open up the running game is ignoring the type of personnel that we like to us.  We run a lot of 21 and 12 personnel.  That's nine offensive players in the formation with only two wide receivers.  There is no reason for the defense to have fewer than seven in the box against those formation and they can have an eighth close by.  That's not "stacking the box" - that is correctly aligning to our formation.  If there are 7-8 guys in the box and you're an Inside Zone team, it is extremely tough to create much space to run in.  There are simply too many bodies to get in the way.  That's just the simple math of how we are lining up.

It is also interesting which parts of things you like to focus on.  You claim we saw more outside running in the spring game so we should expect more of that going forward.  That's possible - I'd have to go back and watch more.  But one game vs. two years of history isn't exactly conclusive. 

 

We also saw 95 passes compared to 40 rushing attempts.  Does that mean that we should expect 70% pass plays going forward?

 

Mavric we have had this discussion before.  You just don't like what MR and DL are trying to do offensively.  I get that, frankly this is not my first choice for an offense either, but it doesn't mean it can't work.  

 

Number 3 is really the only point that is a point.  

[ScottyIce]

Holy crap just read that thread. Did we already go 0-12 after rushing for 12 yards per game and Lee only passing for 23% completion rate?

1 minute ago, NUinID said:

 

Mavric we have had this discussion before.  You just don't like what MR and DL are trying to do offensively.  I get that, frankly this is not my first choice for an offense either, but it doesn't mean it can't work.  

How dare you! (You're right)

[84HuskerLaw]

This  long debate / discussion was interesting and I think both sides seemed to have some good and maybe not so good points.   I would argue that a good / effective passing game can open the run and vice versa.  The key is that it must be effective.  It is not so much have many attempts or the ratio of run vs pass that really matters.

 

 One can argue that a team that runs 80 offensive plays in a game, for example, that completes 10 of 15 passes attempted for 175 yards and no touchdowns used an effective passing game to open up the run in which the team rushed 65 times for 325 yards and six TDs.   The passes that count are the ones that keep the drives alive and keep the chains moving.  Nothing more frustrating to a defense than battling and battling to stop those inside 4 yards and a cloud of dust runs up the gut and finally get the offense in a third and seven and the offense completes a 15 yard pass and is now nearly in '4 down' territory where the ground game is even more problamatic.

 

On the other hand, if a team passes the ball 50 times and completes 30 for 300 yards and three TDs  and runs it thirty, but gains 125 yards and scores 2 TDs on runs, the defense can become equally as frustrated.  Most defensive coordinators will say, you stop the run first and make the opponent 'one dimentional'.  This is because, if a team can run on you, they will tend to continue to do so and will hold on to the ball consuming play clock and preventing your offense from having possesions.  A run for no gain, burns double the play clock of an incomplete pass for no gain.  We all know how painful incomplete passes can be, especially a 3 & out, using up less than a minute of clock and not even advancing ball a few yards for the change of possesion benefit.  

 

Just throwing incomplete passes will NOT open up the run, nor will running for little or no gain, repeatedly open up the pass.  The offense has to inflict pain on the defense by making gains  and getting first downs and changing field position and or scoring points.  It doesn't really matter how that is done (pass or run).  

 

I do agree with one point made that indicated Riley was afraid to run Tommy A (injury to him was devastating to the team's chances as we had NO back u). p QB with legit ability).   This is absolutely unacceptable and thankfully (apparently) we have in year 3 corrected this glaring deficiency.   I believe we MUST have 3 QBs ready and able to lead the team to a win vs no less than 75% of our opponents when the season starts and we need 2 such QBs in game 8, or we need to use another scholarship or two to add more QBs.  We dont have to play Gebbia unless Lee and POB both get hurt but he better be ready to go in game one cause stranger things have happened.  

 

I expect Lee will pass MUCH more effectively than Tommy A did more often and after a couple games, our future opponents will be hoping we run the ball because they will FEAR our passing game more.  It is not just yards, % of completions, TDs vs INTs etc. It is 'effectiveness and timeliness of completions.  Do we get that critical third and long and keep the offense on the field or do we punt?   15 out of 27 for 139 yards and 1 TD will not terrorize the defensive coordinator UNLESS 5 of those completions came at the right times to keep the offense moving and leading to a field goal kick instead of a punt or enabling a 38 yard punt to pin them inside their own ten yard line.  

 

I believe, based on all the conversations and comments and critics of those watching Lee throw, and on the spring game results (that's all we have to go on at this point), that our passing game will be much more efficient and effective than we have seen in a long time.  This will in turn make our running game more effective as well.  We will see better production, in YPC from any of the backs we give the ball too (and if you add the receiving yards the RBs generate to the runs) we will have a very potent offense.   We will be hard to defend.

 

If not, then it will be a very long, dreadful season and long cold winter will follow  Much like the past 15 plus seasons.   It is time to get a lot better on offense.  The defense will do their jobs well enough to win 10 games.  The offense and special teams have got to be much better and I believe they will be.  Can't wait to find out !    

       

[GBRFAN]

2 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

No sh#t?  Completing 66% of your passes will get the attention of a defense?

 

I specifically used 2 of 3 to make a point that something close to that would get the job - we may hit 67% however that would be tough and not expected.  - Keep using those key words "sh#t" since the rest of your post doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[GBRFAN]

2 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

Can you read?  I can take out QB rushing when i am specifically speaking about Running Back rushing.  

What in the blue hell are you talking about?

 

do you understand that if a play is setup for a QB to run and then you want to do something similar, however not use the QB that the most likely candidate would be a RB?

[GBRFAN]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Yep.  And if we're completing 67% percent of our passes don't you think it would make sense to do that more?  That would have been Top 10 in the country last year.

 

Not always - sometimes the reason that something works is that you have balance.  Have you played poker before - Bluffs will get you some chips however usually after a few too many they lose effect......but you are the MAV so tell us how it works!!!

[BigRedBuster]

5 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

Well, technically you didn't because you gave the non-answer "not necessarily" but that's the only argument to support your "not necessarily."

No

[Enhance]

7 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I definitely think there is something to this.  We had a thread awhile ago discussing comment about how you may really need a good OL to have a top-notch WCO.  I said a dozen years ago (Callahan hire) that the problem with going WCO was we were now recruiting in the same pool as Alabama, USC, etc where if you run option (at the time) you're competing against a smaller set of opponents.

 

I'm not sure about an Air Raid-type offense but I think your point is valid.  I actually think the Oregon-style that we were attempting a few years ago is the way to go for us.  Get an athletic QB and you can still have a top-shelf rushing attack without a great OL.  But we need a QB who is a more accurate passer than what we had to be a complete offense.

 

I've always had conceptual concerns with these styles of offenses, particularly the air raid. Leach used to (and still might) put huge gaps between his linemen, and I remember analysts pointing out (on more than one occasion) that this strategy often helped make up for a lack of skill/depth on the o-line. Given that Nebraska's o-line has flirted between average to above average for some time, I'm not sure we need any more reason or excuse to not be elite in this area.

 

I've always felt NU's path to success was more along the lines of what Stanford runs, or even what Wisconsin does, to a degree. Nebraska can (and should be able to) rely upon strong, physical offensive lines. This would in turn help make up for the fact that they won't rake in the high four and five star skill position players on a regular basis.

[agibson95]

My prediction is 33-8-73%

[Mavric]

3 hours ago, GBRFAN said:

 

Not always - sometimes the reason that something works is that you have balance.  Have you played poker before - Bluffs will get you some chips however usually after a few too many they lose effect......but you are the MAV so tell us how it works!!!

 

If you're completing 67% of your passes, you don't have to bluff anything.  You do what's working.