Please enlighten.Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.That's a half story.
Example:
BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)
Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)
Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)
That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the runass ratio in losses is 48:52
It's rather simple. Look types of running plays (and when we used them) vs Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Northwestern... vs what we did vs MSU and UCLA. Hell, Purdue's rush D was worse than UCLA's, and we couldn't have been more vanilla in the run game against the boilermakers.Please enlighten.Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.That's a half story.
Example:
BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)
Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)
Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)
That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the runass ratio in losses is 48:52
![]()
My only point of contention with your post is your last paragraph where you mention where our personnel is strongest. I could be wrong here but I thought it was pretty common knowledge that most felt the WR corp was far superior to what NU had at RB. I do agree that having a adequate running game is important but if you've got a bunch of studs @ WR then I think you have to get them the ball. It's going to be really interesting to watch this offense over the next couple years.I think the issue is more situational play calling instead of run/pass ratio, especially considering the strengths/weaknesses of some of key personnel.
Its maddening to see a 3rd and 1 pass, especially once they've established a consistently successful run game. Its silly to create much creativity in the pass game, but shirk that responsibility with the run game, especially when you know that weather may be a factor that forces you into a running game plan even if the opponent is more suited to stop the run, and you have a QB that struggles at times to make the simplest passes in the best of scenarios.
Absolutely, a team can win a lot with a predominate passing game, but first, you better have the necessary personnel to do it, and second, based on our location, you still have to put the necessary effort into developing a creative running game to counter balance the creative pass attack for days when Mother Nature doesn't cooperate.
Personally, I think the coaches failed miserably most of the season on equally developing a creative run scheme as they did the pass, especially considering where our personnel's talent seemed strongest, and there seemed to be an unfair amount of situational play calls that seemed to kill game/drive momentum (usually it seemed to be a pass play).
I don't think anyone is arguing that point unless you physically can't dominate. Then you need to mix in more passing against better teams or teams that sell out to stop the run.Eppley definitely was a major part of the recipe. But it tells me that running the ball is the best way to win football games.
It's not my job to gather info from your statements.It's rather simple. Look types of running plays (and when we used them) vs Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, and Northwestern... vs what we did vs MSU and UCLA. Hell, Purdue's rush D was worse than UCLA's, and we couldn't have been more vanilla in the run game against the boilermakers.Please enlighten.Again... watch HOW we ran the ball.That's a half story.
Example:
BYU - 37 rushes, 127 yards (3.4 YPC)
Northwestern - 38 rushes, 82 yards (2.2 YPC)
Iowa - 38 rushes, 137 yards (3.6 YPC)
That stat also gets inflated because of the Purdue game, where we played from so incredibly far behind the entire game. Minus the Purdue game, the runass ratio in losses is 48:52
![]()
They can simply do whatever they want this game.Stanford now at 54% rush in the game.