Change Scheme or Change QB?

[Stumpy1]

Simonton was not a 2 year back for Riley. He played 1 year under him (1998).

It's really interesting to watch folks grasp at random examples and ignore the actual obvious stats and trends that stare them in the face.

I honestly don't get it. why are people trying to make Riley into something he's not and never has been?

You are doing the same...You stated the Jackson's one year under Riley was his worst for ypc. (who really gives a sh#t) but when you look at the whole picture of that year, he set the school record for All- Purpose yards.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I honestly don't get it. why are people trying to make Riley into something he's not and never has been?

Wow....Pot meet kettle.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Guy,

I didn't ask a question, and didn't even frame my comment in a way you could infer the question you decided to answer.

Let's change "question" to "questioning" and ask what else you could possibly want to infer from "I highly doubt Riley will recruit a "feature back" at NU."

Then be a sport and look at the story I linked to, which acknowledges some of your concerns but also details where you are wrong.

 

[huskerfan2000]

Why is it such a big controversy why he came here?

He obviously thinks we have a program and coaches that will be the best for developing and using his skills.

Which I agree with and am glad for.

Not sure why there is an argument.

Well, read the thread. It really has nothing to do with KJ, it has to do with Riley and why he recruited the players he has.

recruit KJ, recruit Patrick.. those are keys to passing, not running. Riley says they will emphasize running, but recruited players for passing...

Kind of the opposite of how things are usually done when wanting to run more.

So because we recruited POB and KJJ we aren't committed to having s good rushing attack.

The logic there is just baffling and comical.

Did you even read the thread title? let me help..

Change Scheme or Change QB?
The point is will he change his scheme (as a pro-style type of coach) to be more of a running style coach. I said, look at who he recruited.. it doesn't lend itself to being a running style coach.

Nowhere did it suggest this..

we aren't committed to having s good rushing attack.

What it did mean was Riley is committed to being a pro-style coach. He won't change who he is.

 

[cm husker]

Riley is committed to the running game much like Osborne was committed to a passing game. Both want "efficiency" in that complimentary aspect of their offense, though Riley does seem to chase the gold ring of "balance" unfortunately.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Why is it such a big controversy why he came here?

He obviously thinks we have a program and coaches that will be the best for developing and using his skills.

Which I agree with and am glad for.

Not sure why there is an argument.

Well, read the thread. It really has nothing to do with KJ, it has to do with Riley and why he recruited the players he has.

recruit KJ, recruit Patrick.. those are keys to passing, not running. Riley says they will emphasize running, but recruited players for passing...

Kind of the opposite of how things are usually done when wanting to run more.

So because we recruited POB and KJJ we aren't committed to having s good rushing attack.

The logic there is just baffling and comical.

Did you even read the thread title? let me help..

Change Scheme or Change QB?
The point is will he change his scheme (as a pro-style type of coach) to be more of a running style coach. I said, look at who he recruited.. it doesn't lend itself to being a running style coach.

Nowhere did it suggest this..

we aren't committed to having s good rushing attack.

What it did mean was Riley is committed to being a pro-style coach. He won't change who he is.

You don't think my post might go as far as the title to the thread?

As for the bold. Being a "pro-style" coach doesn't mean he isn't going to understand the importance of running the ball.

Yes...I read the thread. People act like because he recruited POB and KJJ that he doesn't think the running game is important. That's just hogwash.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Riley is committed to the running game much like Osborne was committed to a passing game. Both want "efficiency" in that complimentary aspect of their offense, though Riley does seem to chase the gold ring of "balance" unfortunately.

You already said you'd prefer Riley just go all in on passing and scuttle the rushing game almost entirely so he could avoid this dreaded "balance."

One of many reasons why I take your posts with a grain of salt from my margarita glass.

And now we're putting "efficiency" in quotes?

 

[BRV920]

I've never once heard CM Husker say that he wanted a all in passing game Guy. He has been very consistent in saying that he would like to see us run a power running offense with some option game. He did state that he doesn't understand why everybody is surprised thar Riley wants to throw the ball a lot. CM Husker seems to be one of the few people on HB that seems to understand that a balanced offense isn't the best way to build a consistent winner.

 

[Stumpy1]

Then what is a good run/pass ratio? 60-40? 65-35? 55-45?

If you go and look at some of the top teams, they have an average ratio of 57-43 run/pass ratio. We ended the season with a 52-48 ratio. There were some exceptions like Stanford and Baylor that had a 65-35 ratio. The Gumps were sitting at a 60-40. Other then that, a lot of teams were in the 55% run area.

I wouldn't be opposed to having a 55-45 or even 60-40 but they I also wouldn't mind being balanced also if it allows use to keep the chains moving.

 

[BRV920]

I've stated several times I'd like to see AT LEAST a 60/40 run/pass ratio. If our goal is to play for conference and National championships the numbers say that running the ball 60% of the time or more is the best way to do that. Only two teams have won a National Championship in the last 15 years with a 50/50 balance or throwing more than running.

 

[Hunter94]

Why is it such a big controversy why he came here?

He obviously thinks we have a program and coaches that will be the best for developing and using his skills.

Which I agree with and am glad for.

Not sure why there is an argument.

Well, read the thread. It really has nothing to do with KJ, it has to do with Riley and why he recruited the players he has.

recruit KJ, recruit Patrick.. those are keys to passing, not running. Riley says they will emphasize running, but recruited players for passing...

Kind of the opposite of how things are usually done when wanting to run more.

So because we recruited POB and KJJ we aren't committed to having s good rushing attack.

The logic there is just baffling and comical.

Did you even read the thread title? let me help..

Change Scheme or Change QB?
The point is will he change his scheme (as a pro-style type of coach) to be more of a running style coach. I said, look at who he recruited.. it doesn't lend itself to being a running style coach.

Nowhere did it suggest this..

we aren't committed to having s good rushing attack.

What it did mean was Riley is committed to being a pro-style coach. He won't change who he is.

You don't think my post might go as far as the title to the thread?

As for the bold. Being a "pro-style" coach doesn't mean he isn't going to understand the importance of running the ball.

Yes...I read the thread. People act like because he recruited POB and KJJ that he doesn't think the running game is important. That's just hogwash.

its not just the percentage of run/pass plays.......when the weather is horsesh#t, he better run a helluva lot more than pass....he failed in several games last year to consider the poor throwing conditions.....and it showed.

 

[BRV920]

Amen to that Hunter94

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I've never once heard CM Husker say that he wanted a all in passing game Guy. He has been very consistent in saying that he would like to see us run a power running offense with some option game. He did state that he doesn't understand why everybody is surprised thar Riley wants to throw the ball a lot. CM Husker seems to be one of the few people on HB that seems to understand that a balanced offense isn't the best way to build a consistent winner.

Well sometimes when he gets trapped in a corner he says silly stuff. I know he doesn't really mean this:

I would rather NU go to an air raid system then try to chase "balance" in terms of play selection.

He also accused Alabama and the other consistent winners who run 60/40 splits of courting too much balance. But they get away with it because they have talent.

Please don't make me go look those up, too.

 

[cm husker]

I stand by my preference that NU commit to specializing in one prong of attack or the other.

You know, of course, guy, that I prefer a run heavy approach. But continue your obsessions in the context of your choosing.

 

[BRV920]

Pretty sure he that it wasn't the best idea for a offense at Nebraska because we don't have the luxury in recruiting that Alabama has and that he would like to see us run a offense closer to Osbornes. If I remember right Guy.