RUN THE BALL!!!
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
HuskerExpat
Starter
And really, what teams other than Iowa or Michigan St this year are from cold weather areas and played for a power 5 conference championship. So those two teams being run heavy prove you can't win the conference in Nebraska by passing? Seriously. That's a pretty small sample size and not exactly fool proof logic.
HuskerExpat
Starter
Assuming the truth of that stat, it still doesn't prove much. We're we passing so much because we were behind, because we couldn't run, or because the other team had a stout run defense (Iowa, MSU, NW, Wisconsin) and/or a softer pass defense?
You have to look beyond the surface to the explanation why we were doing that.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Well, since the only P5 conference that is I the cold is the big ten, I'll look at Iowa and MSU.
MSU ran the ball 55% of the time compared to our 52%.
That equates to running the ball maybe 1-2 times more per game.
Now, we got into this conversation by you asking about teams growing it 40-60 times per game. Which really nobody is doing.
My opinion is that the sweet spot for running is 55-60% of the time. We aren't that far off from that.
But, game situations could dictate differently.
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerExpat
Starter
Right, so against Purdue we had to pass because of game conditions. Against Wisc, Iowa, MSU and NW we had to pass more because those teams have a good run D and we couldn't run as effectively against them as we against, say, UCLA. That accounts for five games where circumstances dictated we pass somewhat more.
The whole topic has been started in multiple threads based on us having been dominating running in the past and then dominating a crappy UCLA run D in our bowl game, and it was our most convincing/dominating/sound game of the year. So some people scream, "We should do what we did in that game more!" Unfortunately it is not that simple.
The whole topic has been started in multiple threads based on us having been dominating running in the past and then dominating a crappy UCLA run D in our bowl game, and it was our most convincing/dominating/sound game of the year. So some people scream, "We should do what we did in that game more!" Unfortunately it is not that simple.
Last edited by a moderator:
So what is the excuse for not running the ball in the game against bad rushing D's? I'm not saying we don't need to throw the ball but our team identity needs to be running the ball. Whoever it may be. Riley said as much. Hopefully he actually follows thru with it.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
I agree that In the Purdue game, we should have ran more. I'll give you that one.
HuskerExpat
Starter
I never claimed that the game plan in every game was sound. I'm merely responding to the suggestion that bullheadedly running the ball 60% of the time or more without regard to the other team's strengths and weaknesses or their game plan against us is not likely to succeed either. Unless we're in 1995, which we're not.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
HuskerExpat
Starter
Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. That's not the point. The point is we are not capable, at present, of physically dominating the other team even when they know what we're going to do, like we were in 1995.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Not saying that.
But, you would have to have the far superior talent that he had.
He also had issues in games where he fell behind and couldn't come back if they stopped his run.
Running, just like passing is an art form. Running more for the simple fat of running more won't make us successful. It is calling the proper run against the D. Running off tackle into Bama's DL won't work. Calling running plays that will make them "pay" for "running down hill" is a better idea i.e. counters, read option (option variants) etc... Running plays might be called "less", but would be more successful.
IMO, Langs simply calls running plays to call running plays. Not really ones with a high probability of success i.e. Cross outside, Newby inside etc..... Just like really looking at what TA can do in the passing game needs to be done in the running game. Examine your backs (not every back is a bruiser, speed guy, shifty etc) Call plays to their strengths. Try and define what type of running game we want. Option, spread, power, power from spread sets (Houston), inverted veer (OSU), 2 back etc..... Get this figured out and recruit for it. More of this or more of that doesn't matter if we fail to execute or continue to pound the square peg into the round hole......
IMO, Langs simply calls running plays to call running plays. Not really ones with a high probability of success i.e. Cross outside, Newby inside etc..... Just like really looking at what TA can do in the passing game needs to be done in the running game. Examine your backs (not every back is a bruiser, speed guy, shifty etc) Call plays to their strengths. Try and define what type of running game we want. Option, spread, power, power from spread sets (Houston), inverted veer (OSU), 2 back etc..... Get this figured out and recruit for it. More of this or more of that doesn't matter if we fail to execute or continue to pound the square peg into the round hole......