Yep. When all you do is run the ball straight up the middle against a good DT, he's going to make quite a few plays.
RUN THE BALL!!!
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
StPaulHusker
Banned
So when we're running the for 5.5 yards per carry against Illinois but still continue to throw it 30+ times completing 32%, that was a decision based on how well they were stopping our running game?
Or when our backs are gaining 5.3 yards per carry against Wisconsin and we're completing 39% of or passes, that wasn't a decision to keep passing?
Or 4.8 ypc from our backs wasn't good enough to get more than 20 carries against Purdue so we were simply forced to have our walk-on QB throw it 48 times?
No one is saying there isn't more that goes into it than offensive play-calling. There are plenty of areas to get better. But this is a thread about running the ball. And it's one thing that the coaches have the most direct control over.
Yep. That's a big reason why he led the team with 11 tackles - most tackles he had in a game this year.
Red_October
Three-Star Recruit
UCLA was not a good rush defensive team,. Period!
StPaulHusker
Banned
StPaulHusker
Banned
That's not always uncommon. Take what the defense gives and whatnot.
I do agree with the overall assessment that Langsdorf's light bulb came on a few games too late. Year 2 will show us what the coaches learned.
I'm fine if what the defense is giving you is also good.
When the other options the defense is giving you is sub-40% completions and multiple interceptions, not so much.
Nope. It ties directly into our W-L record. Directly. And there is no more glaring example than the Purdue game.Guy Chamberlin said:
We were down two scores again UCLA, but stayed committed to the run. It's not about all or none. It's about having a good run/pass ratio. The games we won versus the games we lost are indicative of this.
I have to echo the thoughts of some of our other posters here. I see what you're getting at, and I don't think many would disagree with you that several factors go into offensive play calling and how that relates to on-field success.Guy Chamberlin said:
The stats from this year, however, show the team was 0-4 when TA threw the ball 40 or more times.
Of course, I would argue the reason TA did throw a lot in some of those games was because the ground was struggling or they were behind. But as I mentioned earlier in this thread, is it fair to really blame the rushing attack when guys like Jano/Ozigbo weren't seeing carries? Is it fair to blame the rushing attack when TA completed only 40 percent of his passes, and 60 percent hit the turf and counted for nothing?
Sometimes you have to pass and there's no denying that. But, I would certainly argue we didn't put our guys in good enough positions to win this year based on our offensive strategy. TA is not going to win them games throwing 40 or more times, and that means you HAVE to devote your resources and time to making sure you're exhausting every avenue of the run game.
alwayshusking
Starter
Big reason the running game worked vs MSU was the passing game was working so well. They were on their heels.xlbder said:
I think it's a mistake to think we could have lined up and ran over everyone like we did vs UCLA. I'd have liked to see us commit more to the run this year given our QB situation but there's some nuance here.
We didn't run the ball well vs good teams in 2014 when we had a great RB in Abdullah.
MSU - 37 carries for 47 yards 1.3 ypc
Wisconsin - 46 carries for 118 yards 2.6 ypc
USC - 43 carries for 143 yards 3.3 ypc
Many of us would be complaining if we just slammed our heads into the wall with the running game without it succeeding as well. The defense was a problem for much of the season, and cost us games as well. Both units started playing better football at the end of the season, which isn't that surprising given we had a new coaching staff.
Guy Chamberlin
Heisman Trophy Winner
Yeah. This, too.
Listen, I get what everyone is saying. I think we could have run the ball more. I think Tommy could have completed a few more of his passes, too, and a few less to the opponents. He could have run with more authority. He should have obeyed a couple more of the play calls. I think turnovers, penalties, brain farts and defense had far more to do with our losses than play-calling. You can blame Riley for the continued lack of discipline and consistency. That's fair game.
But the notion that we could simply have ridden Janovich and Cross to victory in most of our losses is wishful thinking.
I do think there's a weird double-standard on this board of remembering the running plays that worked, forgetting the running plays that didn't, remembering the pass plays that failed and forgetting the pass plays that kept drives alive.
On a team that averaged 450 yards a game, 33 points, and maintained perfectly respectable third down conversion and time-of-possession stats.
I'm willing to throw both the Illinois and Purdue games to the wolves.
The fact that there is far less frustration and debate concerning Nebraska's ongoing defensive woes is strange to me.
The Dude
Heisman Trophy Winner
I think it's because defense is more dependant on talent, so there's less to discuss. If you have holes in your defense the other teams will try to exploit them, and there's only so much control you have over that.
Throwing 50 times with your backup QB in bad weather against a bad rush defense is a decision the offensive coordinator and ultimately the head coach has control over.
It's not just how many times we ran but whether we lined up in a running formation. Two backs, Jano and cross or Oz, and a tight end, thats a running formation. And it would take someone like Mav to break it all down but my sense is the runs worked pretty good we we came out like that. The misdirection runs, delayed hand offs to Newby and Cross, that didnt work that well. I saw a lot of two back sets working well and I saw Purdue. Do I think Purdue has a better D than MSU or UCLA? No.