Time to go back to the option/power offense

[Wistrom Disciple]

19 minutes ago, Undone said:

And where I'm upset is that Frost had this issue last year. And he fired his OC and brings in "his guy." But this stuff still isn't fixed.

 

One other thought, and I'm not looking for an argument here, but just because a guy is a "power back" doesn't mean there's an excuse for his first couple steps to not be quick and not to slash through the hole. If you just lumber along, those would-be tacklers are one step closer to you and bring you down.

 

We have to figure out how to put the ball in the end zone once we're inside the 10 yard line this season.

 

I agree, I thought between him and his buddy they would figure out some bread and butter plays. 

True, power backs can be nimble but often our play calls seem to push Mills towards the outside where he is not as fast and we get tripped up for little to no gain. Reminds me of Riley's misuse of Devine Ozigbo. With a big O-line now, we should be using that to our advantage and plow forward instead of trying to always be tricky. It isn't necessarily pretty football but Wisconsin has proven that it can be effective.

 

13 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

I can't pretend that I know schemes and play calling well enough to really answer this, but unfortunately so far that Wisconsin game is the exception and not the rules for Mills. More often than not he seems to average around 3 yards a carry and maybe that's play calling. To my eyes though he seems to miss holes and isn't a game breaker that NU needs to make Frost's offense work. I hope he makes it work, but he doesn't seem to have the vision to make things work like I think we need. I could be wrong but that's what i see.

I agree, Mills isn't world changing but he does tend to be productive when give the opportunity. Yes, I will admit that the Wisconsin game last year was an anomaly. That said, I don't like having our quarterbacks having as many rushes as our runningbacks and twice as many passes like we had this past weekend. 

[WyoHusker56]

14 minutes ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

 

I agree, I thought between him and his buddy they would figure out some bread and butter plays. 

True, power backs can be nimble but often our play calls seem to push Mills towards the outside where he is not as fast and we get tripped up for little to no gain. Reminds me of Riley's misuse of Devine Ozigbo. With a big O-line now, we should be using that to our advantage and plow forward instead of trying to always be tricky. It isn't necessarily pretty football but Wisconsin has proven that it can be effective.

 

I agree, Mills isn't world changing but he does tend to be productive when give the opportunity. Yes, I will admit that the Wisconsin game last year was an anomaly. That said, I don't like having our quarterbacks having as many rushes as our runningbacks and twice as many passes like we had this past weekend. 

 

I agree with you. The fact that our QBs are the leading rushers over and over again is honestly a problem.

[Wistrom Disciple]

1 minute ago, WyoHusker56 said:

I agree with you. The fact that our QBs are the leading rushers over and over again is honestly a problem.

No doubt! I'd be more comfortable if the offense called for that but way too much scrambling is asking for turnovers and injuries to happen.

[krc1995]

59 minutes ago, Wistrom Disciple said:

That said, I don't like having our quarterbacks having as many rushes as our runningbacks and twice as many passes like we had this past weekend. 

How many were due to broken plays vs. zone reads? Don’t know anything about how they look different, but AMARTS runs seemed broken plays. Or maybe the QB scramble is a designed 2nd option for the QB in zone read. If so, then could we have receivers that aren’t slick enough to get separation?  

[Wistrom Disciple]

6 minutes ago, krc1995 said:

How many were due to broken plays vs. zone reads? Don’t know anything about how they look different, but AMARTS runs seemed broken plays. Or maybe the QB scramble is a designed 2nd option for the QB in zone read. If so, then could we have receivers that aren’t slick enough to get separation?  

I don't have the numbers breakdown but I agree that if they were designed that way I can understand a run. 21 runs combined for Adrian & Luke though is a lot. I'd much rather see that number in half and let our runningbacks get some work to make those read options more threatening and the quick passes hopefully more open if the defense is worried about a run.