54 plays for 1 yard or less

[3rd and long]

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.

You know, I do very much enjoy the discussion. It's such a refreshing change of pace. I'm also a follower of Neb High School sports, and the board where that is discussed gets really old in a hurry. Name calling and childish posts. Obviously, there are a few here, but for the most part, opinions are at least presented with mostly well thought out reasoning.

I don't think the T.O.P. stat is overblown, I believe if it is something we don't correct it will come back and bite us in the a** at some point this season. I know a score is a score, but much like TM's stats (OH no, shouldn't go there again!!), I really believe we have to be able to look past the numbers to be able to see if they are giving us the complete picture. And right now, I believe we are a better team in the stat column than we really are on the field.

But like you've also said numerous times, things could really look different after this weekend.

 

[junior4949]

The real question is whether or not the homeruns will be there when we play teams with good/great defenses? If we have so many plays for little to no yards against less than stellar defenses, how will we move the ball against teams with good/great defenses? Considering Washington's D has been lit up thus far this year, I don't think we learn a lot about our offense this weekend either. A good offense and a good defense both start up front in the trenches. The OL needs to get things rolling.

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I think it's a mistake to say we "rely" on the big plays. It's not like we are choosing to call "home run" plays knowing that if they don't come, we will have to punt. Can anyone show otherwise? And it's not like we don't care what happens on other plays as long we get get a few big plays to bail us out. I'm sure we'd love to control the ball for a long drive and take the big play as it comes. So far the drives haven't really been there, but the big plays have been. One doesn't exclude the other, unless you are constantly calling for long passes.

I agree we're going to have to start moving the ball more consistently to get through the Big 12, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of big plays.

 

[Saunders]

I think it's a mistake to say we "rely" on the big plays. It's not like we are choosing to call "home run" plays knowing that if they don't come, we will have to punt. Can anyone show otherwise? And it's not like we don't care what happens on other plays as long we get get a few big plays to bail us out. I'm sure we'd love to control the ball for a long drive and take the big play as it comes. So far the drives haven't really been there, but the big plays have been. One doesn't exclude the other, unless you are constantly calling for long passes.

I agree we're going to have to start moving the ball more consistently to get through the Big 12, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of big plays.

I honestly think it doesn't matter how well we move the ball. We've got no chance at winning the Big 12.

 

[Mierin]

I agree we're going to have to start moving the ball more consistently to get through the Big 12, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of big plays.

I honestly think it doesn't matter how well we move the ball. We've got no chance at winning the Big 12.

nice catch

 

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

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.

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?

For some reason Barry Sanders and the subpar O-Lines he played behind with the Lions comes to mind. I remember that game he had two 80 yard TD runs he was stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage several times.

 

[knapplc]

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.

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?

For some reason Barry Sanders and the subpar O-Lines he played behind with the Lions comes to mind. I remember that game he had two 80 yard TD runs he was stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage several times.

What does that have to do with a three-point loss in last year's CCG and a possible win if we had had a sustained TD drive or a one-play TD drive? :dunno

 

[VA Husker Fan]

I think it's a mistake to say we "rely" on the big plays. It's not like we are choosing to call "home run" plays knowing that if they don't come, we will have to punt. Can anyone show otherwise? And it's not like we don't care what happens on other plays as long we get get a few big plays to bail us out. I'm sure we'd love to control the ball for a long drive and take the big play as it comes. So far the drives haven't really been there, but the big plays have been. One doesn't exclude the other, unless you are constantly calling for long passes.

I agree we're going to have to start moving the ball more consistently to get through the Big 12, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of big plays.

I honestly think it doesn't matter how well we move the ball. We've got no chance at winning the Big 12.

VA Husker Fan regrets the errant post, which saunders45 picked off and took to the house. I was going for the home run post. But dammit, I wasn't relying on it!

Howz about the Big 10?

 

[3rd and long]

I think it's a mistake to say we "rely" on the big plays. It's not like we are choosing to call "home run" plays knowing that if they don't come, we will have to punt. Can anyone show otherwise? And it's not like we don't care what happens on other plays as long we get get a few big plays to bail us out. I'm sure we'd love to control the ball for a long drive and take the big play as it comes. So far the drives haven't really been there, but the big plays have been. One doesn't exclude the other, unless you are constantly calling for long passes.

I agree we're going to have to start moving the ball more consistently to get through the Big 12, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of big plays.

I honestly think it doesn't matter how well we move the ball. We've got no chance at winning the Big 12.

VA Husker Fan regrets the errant post, which saunders45 picked off and took to the house. I was going for the home run post. But dammit, I wasn't relying on it!

Howz about the Big 10?

If you could have just sustained that post for a little longer, maybe time would have run out and saunders45 would not have been able to take it back for the win. :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh

 

[Saunders]

I think it's a mistake to say we "rely" on the big plays. It's not like we are choosing to call "home run" plays knowing that if they don't come, we will have to punt. Can anyone show otherwise? And it's not like we don't care what happens on other plays as long we get get a few big plays to bail us out. I'm sure we'd love to control the ball for a long drive and take the big play as it comes. So far the drives haven't really been there, but the big plays have been. One doesn't exclude the other, unless you are constantly calling for long passes.

I agree we're going to have to start moving the ball more consistently to get through the Big 12, but it doesn't need to be at the expense of big plays.

I honestly think it doesn't matter how well we move the ball. We've got no chance at winning the Big 12.

VA Husker Fan regrets the errant post, which saunders45 picked off and took to the house. I was going for the home run post. But dammit, I wasn't relying on it!

Howz about the Big 10?

If you could have just sustained that post for a little longer, maybe time would have run out and saunders45 would not have been able to take it back for the win. :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh

 

[The Dude]

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.

So if our plan of attack is not to run the ball on sustained drives, we're one defensive line injury away from total failure.

Ok, gotcha.

Also, our offense sucks and we have a crappy offensive coordinator and a lame duck qb, which of course brings us to the conclusion that Wisconsin with put 70 on us very easily.

Makes sense.

 

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

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.

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?

For some reason Barry Sanders and the subpar O-Lines he played behind with the Lions comes to mind. I remember that game he had two 80 yard TD runs he was stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage several times.

What does that have to do with a three-point loss in last year's CCG and a possible win if we had had a sustained TD drive or a one-play TD drive? :dunno

Two words: big play

 

[knapplc]

For some reason Barry Sanders and the subpar O-Lines he played behind with the Lions comes to mind. I remember that game he had two 80 yard TD runs he was stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage several times.

What does that have to do with a three-point loss in last year's CCG and a possible win if we had had a sustained TD drive or a one-play TD drive? :dunno

Two words: big play

Ah. Then I agree - the big play would have won that game just as much as a long drawn-out drive. Good point.

 

[Hercules]

For some reason Barry Sanders and the subpar O-Lines he played behind with the Lions comes to mind. I remember that game he had two 80 yard TD runs he was stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage several times.

What does that have to do with a three-point loss in last year's CCG and a possible win if we had had a sustained TD drive or a one-play TD drive? :dunno

Two words: big play

Ah. Then I agree - the big play would have won that game just as much as a long drawn-out drive. Good point.

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

 

[EbylHusker]

I don't understand why this discussion is so polarizing, it seems fairly straight forward to me. Big plays are great, and we would have won that CCG with just one more big run from Helu or Martinez, but the fact that our offense couldn't even sustain enough of a drive to get the best kicker in NCAA history into his field goal range is why we lost.

The 2011 offense is far from championship-ready. That's no reason to hit the panic button, as it's early in the year, but through two games they have relied on the big play as opposed to sustaining drives, and everybody knows that if we're going to win the Big Ten Championship, we're going to need both. I think they're capable of developing the ability to sustain drives, so I'm not worried at this point, but I still know that they're going to need to show that sometime this season for the team to accomplish its goals. This entire thread seems to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Pretty much that. I'd like to see consistent output from our offense, rather than biting my nails every time they come up wondering if we'll go 3 and out. Being consistent doesn't mean losing the big play ability. If we get second level blocking, our backs will still bust a big gain, and if Martinez gets in the open, he'll do the same. But the ability to put a consistent drive together multiple times in a game would be nice.