54 plays for 1 yard or less

[GSG]

"I think when you are an offense that tries to take advantage of a defense and find a weakness, and if you're able to exploit it and that's their weakness, you're probably going to get a big play out of it," Beck said. "I'd like us to be able to be more consistent running and being able to throw it. But certainly, if we're able to find a soft spot in them and hit it and get some big plays, that's good. That's just kind of part of football sometimes. It's like asking if guys are tired of hitting home runs."

Count me among those in the "Not Worried About It" column.

The big plays aren't the worrisome part. Its the 54 plays for 1 yard or less that is most alarming. And thats against Fresno and an FCS school.

Yes, the big plays are not the problem. It's the other 54.

Those big plays are liable to lessen some when we face stiffer competition, and can no longer get by on pure athletic talent.

Granted, 1-yard plays on 1st-and-goal, 2nd-and-1, or 3rd-and-1 situations are not negative. But if it isn't one of those situations, it's a big negative.

So far what something like this tells me is that we have the most misleadingly good statistics of probably any team in the nation. The averages are going to even things out, but the underlying story is that we struggle to get anything going at all, but then we hit the home run. Few would project the latter to continue happening at the rate it has been, and that is why this is something to worry about.

--

I was going to say I am not that worried about Reed, because McNeil was often the outlet/checkdown guy that Taylor never got to last year. And Reed is the deep threat.

But then I remembered the interception (0:28)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9nXBkFXq2s&t=28s

That play makes my stomach turn. Reed is open for at least 7 yards, if not a first down or more. When they ran that play in the 4th quarter Taylor did hit Reed, for what it's worth.

 

[3rd and long]

Wouldn't we also have won if we had just one more play that scored from 80 yards out? What's the difference between a long, sustained drive and a one-play drive when the margin is three points?

The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have.

Yes, I definitely think Oregon would have won the Big XII last year. I don't think anyone in the Big XII could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game, but Oregon came within three points of doing just that.

All of which is irrelevant, because we lost to Oklahoma by three points. One TD is all it would have taken to win that game. One. It wouldn't have mattered if that TD had come on a 10-play drive or a one-play drive, from one yard or 80 yards.

Let's focus on what we're discussing here - sustaining long drives. I've shown that this is not a relevant need. We can win without long, sustained drives. We just need to score more points than the other team.

All you've shown is you don't believe that sustaing long drives is relevant, I'm more inclined to go along with the myriad of coachs over the years who do believe it is of importance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

The myriad of coaches over the years agree that to win, you need to outscore your opponent.

Yes or no - would you want Oregon's 2010 offense?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, you win, we score more we win, we'll stay with that simplistic outlook and stop looking beyond the numbers on the scoreboard. We're 2-0 because we've scored more points than our opponents, so there must not be anything to worry about correct?

 

[Hunter94]

Whether it was the second half or the second quarter, the fact is that "sustaining drives" wouldn't have been some kind of magic cure-all, then or now.

Last year Oregon's offense (the same offense we're working towards) averaged 1:49 seconds of possession on their TD drives, the lowest in D1A. They also made it to the BCS National Championship game, so I don't think this "boom or bust" mentality is what we need to worry about. Having long, sustained, grind-it-out drives is not necessary. They can be strategically important, but they are not crucial to success.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter.

that is exactly correct. anytime, in any game, the defense is spending a lot of time on the field, the harder it is to win and do so consistently through out the year....fatigue also leads to injuries as well...this is a big deal.

Oregon says "Hello!" from the BCS Championship last year. Oregon ranked 115th in the nation in Time of Possession last year, averaging 24 minutes of possession a game. That means their defense was on the field 66% of the time, every game. And they still won their conference and went to the National Championship Game. This is a completely false premise.

And Hunter, regarding your post above, we have not run 66 plays this year, we've run 124. Not sure where you got that 66 number.

Husker's Offensive Stats according to Huskers Illustrated:

54 plays for 1 yard or less

12 gigantic plays for a total of 499 yards

you can always find an exception.....always.

 

[zoogs]

knapplc, to make the Oregon comparison you would have to compare their 1-yard-or-less plays. Not sure if that has been done yet or not, but I don't think it will be that similar.

Also, knapplc is right about the # of plays we have run. It is just not 66 by any measure.

 

[tschu]

Oregon's offense was

a) better than ours and

b ) runs at a much faster pace than ours

 

[BrooklynsFinest]

Let's not forget how young this offense is. The offense installed is new, but we also have what, half of our players on offense being underclassmen?

Taylor, Quincy, Tyler Moore, Andrew Rodriguez are starters; Ameer Abdullah, Jamal Turner, Kenny Bell are already major contributors, Braylon Heard and Aaron Green look to be contributors.

 

[knapplc]

All you've shown is you don't believe that sustaing long drives is relevant, I'm more inclined to go along with the myriad of coachs over the years who do believe it is of importance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

The myriad of coaches over the years agree that to win, you need to outscore your opponent.

Yes or no - would you want Oregon's 2010 offense?

--------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, you win, we score more we win, we'll stay with that simplistic outlook and stop looking beyond the numbers on the scoreboard. We're 2-0 because we've scored more points than our opponents, so there must not be anything to worry about correct?

What do I win? Oh yeah - I win a conversation with you, which is what I wanted in the first place. Looks like we both win. :thumbs (presuming you're enjoying this, which I hope you are)

I know I gave the ridiculously overly-simplistic approach, but you're either ignoring my point or I'm not making it very well. The point that I am trying to make is that a score is a score is a score, and this stat, two weeks into the season, is overblown. Over the course of a season you have a point, that it's good to have a better ratio in T.O.P. because you won't wear your defense out so much. But there's a great example, from last season, where that stat is blown up. Sure, to have that stat be meaningful this year we'd have to be as good as Oregon's offense and we most definitely are not, but that's what we're trying to build to.

Maybe we get there next year, which means this year is lost as an experiment, but the way I see it is, if we're building to Oregon's offense, these growing pains are acceptable. Certainly not fun, and I wish they were done, but if the end product is a high-powered offense, I'm willing to put up with a "bad" offense for a while.

 

[Blackshirts007]

Taylor is not near the passer as most spread/option qbs, if we could pass the whole the game, you be tim beck would do that if the opposing team has 8 or 9 in the box, but we cant because he does no trust Taylors arm, look at every team last year, excluding okie state, we had twice as many rushes as passes because he is a poor thrower, against okie state he had the opportunity cuz each receiver had a 10 yard gap between him and the db cuz their d was awful...just wait until wisconsin, when bielma put 9 guys in the box consistenly every down, we will see the real martinez...beck wants to pass, we have unbelieveable speed at wr, i just think he doesnt trust him, and thats why we run, run, run

 

[jsneb83]

The thing with Oregon's offense is that they scored so much that it made the other team one dimensional on offense to try and keep up, which doesn't put near as much pressure on their defense. If we are going up tempo, but don't score like Oregon, it puts alot more pressure on the defense. Oregon went to the National Championship last year because they were able to control the pace of the game. If we don't score more and put the opposition's offense into catch-up mode, then we will continue to put more pressure on our defense than we would like.

 

[irafreak]

I mentioned this in another thread but I wonder if our stacking of defensive talent is to counteract the fast paced offense Bo has envisioned.

 

[huskerscott]

54 plays of 1 yard or less is bad anyway you slice it. Oregon ran there offense with precision. Last year when they played CAL, Oregon was able to get a long time consuming drive to kill the clock and preserve the victory. So just because Oregon had a high flying offense, doesnt mean they couldnt slow pace get a couple of yards a crack and keep the chains moving.

Im waiting till after the Wisconsin game to critque our offense and QB play. Im not gonna say "I told you so" but we are gonna be in for rude awakening Oct. 1st in Madison. Like last year defenses will figure out how to stop it. It really wont be that hard when the whole offense is centered around our big play QB. If im a DC, Im sending 7 guys every play to the QB atleast, especially since the Oline hasnt been playing worth a damn.

 

[skersfan]

If we can not run the ball for positive yardage on sustained drives we will lose more than we win the B1G. No question in my mind. If that is our plan of attack, we are one injury away on the defensive line from total failure.

Still think Beck was a cruel joke played on us. We need a real proven offensive coordinator. We did not look for a non proven defensive mind when we went after Bo to be head coach, why did we do it with the offensive side?

It would be different to if the pass plays were even being hit near stride. They are lame ducks floating into hand that have turned around and found themselves open. This will not happen in the B1G is my guess.

We have real offensive problems and I truldy do not see the solution in what we have on the field.

Hope I am completely wrong on this, but if it continouse expect 5-6 or even more losses. Wisconsin will put 70 on us very easily.

 

[zoogs]

It would be different to if the pass plays were even being hit near stride. They are lame ducks floating into hand that have turned around and found themselves open. This will not happen in the B1G is my guess.

This is hardly Beck's fault. It's just what he has to work with. Greased lightning on the ground, lame ducks through the air.

Short of a controversial and surely damaging (in many ways) QB change, what else can we do but play to the strengths that we have? I share your concerns, but not to the same degree.

 

[bshirt]

Taylor is not near the passer as most spread/option qbs, if we could pass the whole the game, you be tim beck would do that if the opposing team has 8 or 9 in the box, but we cant because he does no trust Taylors arm, look at every team last year, excluding okie state, we had twice as many rushes as passes because he is a poor thrower, against okie state he had the opportunity cuz each receiver had a 10 yard gap between him and the db cuz their d was awful...just wait until wisconsin, when bielma put 9 guys in the box consistenly every down, we will see the real martinez...beck wants to pass, we have unbelieveable speed at wr, i just think he doesnt trust him, and thats why we run, run, run

BS.

Tmart is easily...."very easily" as good a passer as Crouch, Frazier, Frost (or as a junior...don't know if he played qb as a soph) were as sophs.

 

[Hercules]

If we can not run the ball for positive yardage on sustained drives we will lose more than we win the B1G. No question in my mind. If that is our plan of attack, we are one injury away on the defensive line from total failure.

Still think Beck was a cruel joke played on us. We need a real proven offensive coordinator. We did not look for a non proven defensive mind when we went after Bo to be head coach, why did we do it with the offensive side?

It would be different to if the pass plays were even being hit near stride. They are lame ducks floating into hand that have turned around and found themselves open. This will not happen in the B1G is my guess.

We have real offensive problems and I truldy do not see the solution in what we have on the field.

Hope I am completely wrong on this, but if it continouse expect 5-6 or even more losses. Wisconsin will put 70 on us very easily.

:facepalm: