RUN THE BALL!!!

We all knew going into this that Riley and Langsdorf were going to be project coaches, what with being from the Pac 10 and all. But I think we all have done a good job bringing them up to speed so far and they seem to be taking instruction well, even if they have had a regression or two.

Nice job, Fellas!
default_thumbsup.gif


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Run the ball. Well. This draws the safeties up to help. This means guys like Rielly, Westy, Moore, Turner, Morgan, DPE, Carter etc will have a much better chance that there will only be 1-1 coverage. No LB's "sneaking" into the passing lanes, no safety deep in the box that TA doesn't see etc.... TA is not "good" enough to be a QB who can look off a safety, freeze a DB, throw into double coverage, see a LB underneath etc... He is good enough to avoid the rush, throw on the run and throw into single coverage.

He is also good enough to make teams pay when they stack the box. Good enough to burn them with his legs. Good enough to win if they let TA be TA. Remember the throw to Moore (IIRC) he scrambles, channels his inner Favre and gets the 1st (maybe a TD). Come off the field and looked like Langs was "correcting" the action. Speculation on my part by body language, but that's the TA we need. The guy who is a winner and puts the team on his shoulders.

 
Mavric said:
....

.....

It's not the offensive line.

.....

.....
Click to expand...
Looking back at BYU and Miami, I'd really have to disagree in those two games. Our line's run blocking was not good at all in those contests, in my opinion.

Now against Illinois...I completely agree. It was play calling to a large extent. But in that game, Wisconsin, and even BYU if our line gets a strong push on first & second downs on our last offensive series and we get five yards in two downs...we get into victory formation and run out the clock.

So I agree with the idea that we needed a stronger ratio of running in our play calling. But I really don't think it can be stated as the only factor in our offense's woes resulting in our 3-4 record. I know you didn't say that specifically of course. But I do think our line has struggled over the course of a lot of key moments in our first five games that has put our record where we're at now.

 
Undone said:
Mavric said:
....

.....

It's not the offensive line.

.....

.....
Click to expand...
Looking back at BYU and Miami, I'd really have to disagree in those two games. Our line's run blocking was not good at all in those contests, in my opinion.

Now against Illinois...I completely agree. It was play calling to a large extent. But in that game, Wisconsin, and even BYU if our line gets a strong push on first & second downs on our last offensive series and we get five yards in two downs...we get into victory formation and run out the clock.

So I agree with the idea that we needed a stronger ratio of running in our play calling. But I really don't think it can be stated as the only factor in our offense's woes resulting in our 3-4 record. I know you didn't say that specifically of course. But I do think our line has struggled over the course of a lot of key moments in our first five games that has put our record where we're at now.
Click to expand...
I think if you'd go back an look at the thread where I did a screen shot at the point of attack for every play in the first half against Miami, you'd have a different opinion about how the line played in that game.

 
I think what Nebraska needs to do is whatever we did in that 99 yard sustained drive that reestablished our offensive credibility in the second half.

It was a pretty good mix. When we talk about "sticking with what works" that's what worked. Play-calling, sure, but also execution and confidence. And rhythm. The no-penalty or turnover kinda rhythm.

When it gets to the fourth quarter and time-killing scenarios, the "no-brainer" approach is to lean heavily, perhaps exclusively, on the run.

Unless that doesn't work. And often it doesn't, because defensive coordinators aren't stupid. And your offensive line isn't a dominant force of nature yet.

Then the fans scream at you, because you "played not to lose" and the conservative play-calling backfired. Clock management is about burning time, but even moreso it's about getting first downs and keeping the ball. The rush plays that got 5-7 yards in the first half tend to get stuffed in the fourth quarter. Even Janovich and Cross get stuffed. Beyond Newby's 69 yard run, Nebraska averaged 3.8 yards a carry for the game. Maybe I wouldn't have called three consecutive passes myself, but I would never assume three consecutive runs would do the job based strictly on per carry average.

We're not a bad rushing team at the moment, and perhaps in line to get better. The difference this week is that more plays worked better, with no deadly penalties or turnovers. The running game works when everything else is working. If we commit to running it more there's always a good chance the per carry average will drop, because that's how it happens in the course of a game where you announce your intention to run.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I think what Nebraska needs to do is whatever we did in that 99 yard sustained drive that reestablished our offensive credibility in the second half.

It was a pretty good mix. When we talk about "sticking with what works" that's what worked. Play-calling, sure, but also execution and confidence. And rhythm. The no-penalty or turnover kinda rhythm.

When it gets to the fourth quarter and time-killing scenarios, the "no-brainer" approach is to lean heavily, perhaps exclusively, on the run.

Unless that doesn't work. And often it doesn't, because defensive coordinators aren't stupid. And your offensive line isn't a dominant force of nature yet.

Then the fans scream at you, because you "played not to lose" and the conservative play-calling backfired. Clock management is about burning time, but even moreso it's about getting first downs and keeping the ball. The rush plays that got 5-7 yards in the first half tend to get stuffed in the fourth quarter. Even Janovich and Cross get stuffed. Beyond Newby's 69 yard run, Nebraska averaged 3.8 yards a carry for the game. Maybe I wouldn't have called three consecutive passes myself, but I would never assume three consecutive runs would do the job based strictly on per carry average.

We're not a bad rushing team at the moment, and perhaps in line to get better. The difference this week is that more plays worked better, with no deadly penalties or turnovers. The running game works when everything else is working. If we commit to running it more there's always a good chance the per carry average will drop, because that's how it happens in the course of a game where you announce your intention to run.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with most you said, Guy.

I think this 4Q drive was a little maddening though, and is a good example when three consecutive passes gets groans.

  • 1st and 10 at NEB 15(11:45 - 4th) Terrell Newby run for 16 yds to the Neb 31 for a 1ST down
  • 1st and 10 at NEB 31(11:30 - 4th) Tommy Armstrong Jr. pass incomplete to Alonzo Moore
  • 2nd and 10 at NEB 31(11:15 - 4th) Tommy Armstrong Jr. pass incomplete to Terrell Newby
  • 3rd and 10 at NEB 31(11:00 - 4th) Tommy Armstrong Jr. pass incomplete to Cethan Carter
  • 4th and 10 at NEB 31(10:50 - 4th) Sam Foltz punt for 42 yds, punt out-of-bounds at the Minn 27
Click to expand...
Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but Landsdorf has shown and admitted that he isn't comfortable with consecutive run calls.

 
Mavric said:
I think if you'd go back an look at the thread where I did a screen shot at the point of attack for every play in the first half against Miami, you'd have a different opinion about how the line played in that game.
Click to expand...
I believe you. You've got a better eye for this stuff than I do. Believe me, if it's really as simple as, "All we need to do is call more run plays," I'm good with it.
default_smile.png


 
QMany said:
Guy Chamberlin said:
I think what Nebraska needs to do is whatever we did in that 99 yard sustained drive that reestablished our offensive credibility in the second half.

It was a pretty good mix. When we talk about "sticking with what works" that's what worked. Play-calling, sure, but also execution and confidence. And rhythm. The no-penalty or turnover kinda rhythm.

When it gets to the fourth quarter and time-killing scenarios, the "no-brainer" approach is to lean heavily, perhaps exclusively, on the run.

Unless that doesn't work. And often it doesn't, because defensive coordinators aren't stupid. And your offensive line isn't a dominant force of nature yet.

Then the fans scream at you, because you "played not to lose" and the conservative play-calling backfired. Clock management is about burning time, but even moreso it's about getting first downs and keeping the ball. The rush plays that got 5-7 yards in the first half tend to get stuffed in the fourth quarter. Even Janovich and Cross get stuffed. Beyond Newby's 69 yard run, Nebraska averaged 3.8 yards a carry for the game. Maybe I wouldn't have called three consecutive passes myself, but I would never assume three consecutive runs would do the job based strictly on per carry average.

We're not a bad rushing team at the moment, and perhaps in line to get better. The difference this week is that more plays worked better, with no deadly penalties or turnovers. The running game works when everything else is working. If we commit to running it more there's always a good chance the per carry average will drop, because that's how it happens in the course of a game where you announce your intention to run.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with most you said, Guy.

I think this 4Q drive was a little maddening though, and is a good example when three consecutive passes gets groans.

  • 1st and 10 at NEB 15(11:45 - 4th) Terrell Newby run for 16 yds to the Neb 31 for a 1ST down
  • 1st and 10 at NEB 31(11:30 - 4th) Tommy Armstrong Jr. pass incomplete to Alonzo Moore
  • 2nd and 10 at NEB 31(11:15 - 4th) Tommy Armstrong Jr. pass incomplete to Terrell Newby
  • 3rd and 10 at NEB 31(11:00 - 4th) Tommy Armstrong Jr. pass incomplete to Cethan Carter
  • 4th and 10 at NEB 31(10:50 - 4th) Sam Foltz punt for 42 yds, punt out-of-bounds at the Minn 27
Click to expand...
Hindsight is 20/20, of course, but Landsdorf has shown and admitted that he isn't comfortable with consecutive run calls.
Click to expand...
Well keeping in mind that in a similar situation against Wisconsin Langsdorf ran three consecutive times, failed to get the first down and suffered the same groans and second guesses. Except some prefer not to see the danger of rushing plays at all, and merely assume Janovich would have gotten the yards Cross or Newby didn't. Or vice-versa.

I prefer the Tommy roll-out option myself. Maybe teach him to pump fake and tuck. Turns out that was the play that should have worked against Illinois, but didn't.

Beck was often in the same situation. So are OCs on every college and pro team. If there was a sure-fire formula for fourth quarter success, we'd see it run every time. When they say they see a mismatch in a defense that is committed against the run, I tend to believe them. Marginally more efficient quarterbacks would make us second guess those calls a bit less.

I'm certainly interested to see what happens next.

 
lo country said:
Run the ball. Well. This draws the safeties up to help. This means guys like Rielly, Westy, Moore, Turner, Morgan, DPE, Carter etc will have a much better chance that there will only be 1-1 coverage. No LB's "sneaking" into the passing lanes, no safety deep in the box that TA doesn't see etc.... TA is not "good" enough to be a QB who can look off a safety, freeze a DB, throw into double coverage, see a LB underneath etc... He is good enough to avoid the rush, throw on the run and throw into single coverage.

He is also good enough to make teams pay when they stack the box. Good enough to burn them with his legs. Good enough to win if they let TA be TA. Remember the throw to Moore (IIRC) he scrambles, channels his inner Favre and gets the 1st (maybe a TD). Come off the field and looked like Langs was "correcting" the action. Speculation on my part by body language, but that's the TA we need. The guy who is a winner and puts the team on his shoulders.
Click to expand...
Exactly. And seeing the FB quick hitters were a thing of beauty. Reminds me of the old days of FB trap plays. Jano just about broke a couple of long ones.

 
Newby reminds me a little of Marlon Lucky. Anyone else? Pretty athletic, pretty speedy, lots of talent coming out of HS. As a runner, he can do OK and have a 200-yard game against the right opponent, but he's also just not that tough of a runner.

I think both are good college backs and we have to find ways to get them going. Like Lucky, Newby will be fine if they can do that.

Lucky's "problem" to the extent that being a pretty solid back was a problem, was that he wasn't the kind of runner that we would soon see at Nebraska in Helu, Burkhead, and Abdullah (consecutively!) Perhaps we'll be so lucky again.

 
Absolutely, zoogs. I've made that comment many times so far this season; it's a good comparison.

I think it's all the more important in the Big 10 to have a sturdy back that finishes runs hard. Most defenses in the conference are still built to stop the run.

 
On the drive people are complaining about that was towards the end when we threw it three straight plays, weren't two of them dropped? I could be wrong on that but if so it goes without saying that it makes a huge difference.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top