Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[Dansker]

Riley:

"When you look at the (Big Ten), and look at the teams winning it, they're running the ball a lot," he said. "Certainly, we know from just history, you can have a really good passing game. But it always goes better when you run the ball. A lot of that play-action stuff means a little bit more ...


"That should be our game. We have to get to be a better running team."

Langsdorf:

"I think if we could run like that every game, we'd run the ball every time, but we couldn't. I think that shows when you hit 6-, 7-yarders early in the game, you've got them off balance with some things, it's a lot easier to say heavier running."

Link 1, Link 2

Its been a hot topic all year long. We've won games where our running game has done well and when we air it out 40+ times, we lose. I'm wondering when Danny will figure it out that the team that runs the ball better usually wins. I'd grade Langsdorf with a B- for the year. I think he needs to take a second look at himself and realize this isn't Oregon State or the NFL. Perhaps a re-evaluation would do him some good. I can also point out that Riley has previously taken play calling duties away from Langsdorf during their stints at OSU. Maybe they're not on the same page or maybe what Riley is saying is PC stuff. In all honesty, I hope this team puts more emphasis on the run game AND compliment it with a passing attack! We will not win the Big Ten championship if we're a pass heavy team.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

The game plan was to run the ball against UCLA. I applaud the coaches for sticking with it after NU fell behind 21-7, but UCLA still hadn't stopped the offense, except for one drive. Yes, there was Tommy's fumble, but that was after a clear face mask that wasn't called.

Langsdorf has been very quick to move away from the run game when it hasn't worked consistently. He doesn't have the patience to stick with it, play after play, and drive after drive.

 

[Dansker]

The game plan was to run the ball against UCLA. I applaud the coaches for sticking with it after NU fell behind 21-7, but UCLA still hadn't stopped the offense, except for one drive. Yes, there was Tommy's fumble, but that was after a clear face mask that wasn't called.

Langsdorf has been very quick to move away from the run game when it hasn't worked consistently. He doesn't have the patience to stick with it, play after play, and drive after drive.

This is what makes me uncomfortable. During the UCLA game thread, numerous people posted that even though some run plays netted negative yards in the last 5 minutes or so, you still kill time off the clock yet we threw an incomplete pass to stop the clock? How many times have we dropped a WTH on his play calling alone? Langsdorf's judgement throughout the year has been questionable to say the least.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Langsdorf is a QB coach. Most QB coaches want to throw the ball on offense, especially if their experience is in the pro-style passing game. That's where the dichotomy comes into play.

 

[Dansker]

Langsdorf is a QB coach. Most QB coaches want to throw the ball on offense, especially if their experience is in the pro-style passing game. That's where the dichotomy comes into play.

Maybe we go out and hire another Co-OC to coordinate the run game then if Langs' emphasis is on throwing the football. IF Riley is not using PC speak, then he truly gets it that at Nebraska, you've got to be successful running the football. I'm not 100% sold on it yet though. I think the bowl game was just simply attacking a glaring weakness against UCLA's 88th ranked run defense. This formula should have been used against teams we lost to (Illinois and Purdue) and then 8-5 looks much better than 6-7.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

Langsdorf is a QB coach. Most QB coaches want to throw the ball on offense, especially if their experience is in the pro-style passing game. That's where the dichotomy comes into play.

Maybe we go out and hire another Co-OC to coordinate the run game then if Langs' emphasis is on throwing the football. IF Riley is not using PC speak, then he truly gets it that at Nebraska, you've got to be successful running the football. I'm not 100% sold on it yet though. I think the bowl game was just simply attacking a glaring weakness against UCLA's 88th ranked run defense. This formula should have been used against teams we lost to (Illinois and Purdue) and then 8-5 looks much better than 6-7.

This formula should have been used all year, regardless of the opponent. I agree that NU wins at least 7 regular season games, and probably 2 more to go 9-3.

 

[stargazer]

Lost on many seems to be, this was against a team which ranked 88th in the nation against the run. Of course we had success running the ball, of course it was a priority. It became more difficult as they loaded up the box. If the game had to go on another quarter, I fear Tommy's decision making might have begun to become a factor. Tommy had a great game, but the fact remains... he's too streaky, even when playing 'in his system'. It was the same under Pelini. We may have to give up a little mobility, but we will benefit long term, in a quarterback who can make more consistent completions, see all his receivers. We have a lot of play makers, the quarterback just needs to get the ball to them.

 

[suh_fan93]

^

I was just getting ready to say that. UCLA's run defense has been abysmal all season long. It's easy to say we should have run more after seeing the game last night but the reality is pretty much everyone we played had a better run defense than UCLA.

Also UCLA looked more like a 6-6 team last night than an 8-4 team to me. I was really surprised at their record actually. They have Rosen, Kenny Clark and some decent skill players but beyond that they looked horrible.

 

[Hunter94]

Lost on many seems to be, this was against a team which ranked 88th in the nation against the run. Of course we had success running the ball, of course it was a priority. It became more difficult as they loaded up the box. If the game had to go on another quarter, I fear Tommy's decision making might have begun to become a factor. Tommy had a great game, but the fact remains... he's too streaky, even when playing 'in his system'. It was the same under Pelini. We may have to give up a little mobility, but we will benefit long term, in a quarterback who can make more consistent completions, see all his receivers. We have a lot of play makers, the quarterback just needs to get the ball to them.

but again, just as we all knew UCLA could not stop the run, we also know MR took a true spread QB and forced him to throw 30-40 times from a pro set.......and that is just plain bullsh#t, Langs and MR forcing their will on a guy not suited to that role........and that is f'd up coaching!

 

[Dansker]

We out gained UCLA 196 yards to 1 in the 3rd quarter alone. We did this by controlling time of possession and running the football. The real concern is if a pass heavy NFL/QB type of coach like Langsdorf is willing to lean towards a run game that beasts its way to a W like we saw last night. I'd like to see our offense evolve more into a Stanford like offense. Our odds of getting those 11 win seasons and B1G championships will increase with a good running game.

I think we would see more success through the air if we used the run to setup the pass but more often than not, we saw some shady play calling from Langsdorf such as the red zone play where we threw it on 3rd and 1 that resulted in a FG and previously where we threw a fade route before punching it in (WTH?) we were dominating the LOS all night long.

 

[lo country]

Every coach attacks the weakness of the opponents and plays to the strengths of their team. Except this staff until game 13. My biggest concern is the UCLA what we will build on in 2016 or was that a one time shot?

 

[lo country]

We out gained UCLA 196 yards to 1 in the 3rd quarter alone. We did this by controlling time of possession and running the football. The real concern is if a pass heavy NFL/QB type of coach like Langsdorf is willing to lean towards a run game that beasts its way to a W like we saw last night. I'd like to see our offense evolve more into a Stanford like offense. Our odds of getting those 11 win seasons and B1G championships will increase with a good running game.

I think we would see more success through the air if we used the run to setup the pass but more often than not, we saw some shady play calling from Langsdorf such as the red zone play where we threw it on 3rd and 1 and previously where we threw a fade route (WTH?) when we were dominating the LOS.

Said the same thing last night. If Riley and Langs want passing, then model it after Stanford. Power running game that opens the passing game.

 

[Dansker]

Lost on many seems to be, this was against a team which ranked 88th in the nation against the run. Of course we had success running the ball, of course it was a priority. It became more difficult as they loaded up the box. If the game had to go on another quarter, I fear Tommy's decision making might have begun to become a factor. Tommy had a great game, but the fact remains... he's too streaky, even when playing 'in his system'. It was the same under Pelini. We may have to give up a little mobility, but we will benefit long term, in a quarterback who can make more consistent completions, see all his receivers. We have a lot of play makers, the quarterback just needs to get the ball to them.

It became difficult when they loaded the box because we were running inside right to the strength of their defense. When we called some read options where Tommy would keep it, that took their 8-man box and spread it open and made it less effective then we saw Nebraska hit them on the inside again with 5-6 yard rushes. The delayed hand offs and counters also threw UCLA's loaded box into a loop.

 

[WhatDoIKnow]

Hopefully Langsdorf has realized that a couple of stuffed running plays does not mean the running game has stopped working. It still serves a huge purpose. Shortens the game when your own D might be suspect, wears the opposing DL down, forces the opposing D to commit more players to the box, and opens up the passing game.

 

[Dansker]

Every coach attacks the weakness of the opponents and plays to the strengths of their team. Except this staff until game 13. My biggest concern is the UCLA what we will build on in 2016 or was that a one time shot?

This is a concern to me as well. It seems everything Riley has said post game he understands we have to be a better running team and I think he's on the right track that it should probably be our identity in the Big 10 conference. We all saw what tough big bodied men can do to a smaller Pac-12 team. Mora even told the press that his team has to get bigger and stronger if they want to compete at a higher level. I'm sure Mora believed Nebraska too was much better than the record indicated.

It does appear Riley is willing to evolve. Let's hope Langsdorf is willing to do the same.