Running

[Nebfanatic]

Why is Wisconsin the perfect example of what our offense will look like without a dual-threat quarterback? We're not allowed to look at Michigan, Michigan State, Washington, Boise, Oklahoma State, Miami or others for possible results of less-mobile-quarterback-heavy offenses?

I agree. See also Stanford, FSU, Clemson....... POB had 640 yrds on on 143 carries Junior year. 4.5/carry average..... He's not immobile. Far from it. A QB doesn't have to be a dual threat to be an effective runner. Just have to be a threat to extend plays with your legs. He appears to be quick enough, big enough etc.... to do some designed runs IMO.
An accurate, less mobile QB can be just as effective in the running game. One can't crowd the box with a QB capable of throwing all over the place. If you choose to double team receivers, it opens up the running game. A less mobile QB could look like a hypeman in those situations..... We've witnessed that enough.............

Stanford's offense is dead last in FBS in total offense this year. Florida State is using a dual threat QB as a freshman. Clemson uses a dual threat QB. Miami, FL is in the 60s in total offense, with a 3rd year starting QB. I will give Jake Browning at Washington, as he is great. Michigan State's offense is always a mess unless they have a future NFL QB there. Look at this year. Boise State is in the Mountain West and just lost to Wyoming. Oklahoma State has a good offense, but so does 3/4 of the Big 12.

of the top 30 offenses there are plenty with quarterbacks who aren't dual threat. Offenses can be effective with a dual threat guy or more of a pocket passer. Alot of it has to do with the team around that QB as well

 

[Mavric]

Guys watch the game again - Wisc was too fast on the outside. There were no easy yards around the line of scrimmage. This game was not won or lost by Langs - it came down to who was better in the trenches and it wasn't NU.

If you don't think we could make yards to the outside, you either didn't watch the game or are being intentionally ignorant.

No I leave that up to you - your pretty good at it.

If you couldn't see that they had team speed on the edges than I don't know how to help you. We probably ran more times inside then out, however our RB yards were very equal if you total the inside runs to the outside runs.

Once again, you resort to arguing against something I didn't say. I didn't say they didn't have speed. I said we were making yards when we ran outside.

Here's the video of the game. Here's a few examples. There aren't a lot because we don't run to the outside much. Timestamps are where in the video to look for them.

22:28 - Armstrong 9 yard run

48:25 - Newby 19 yard run

1:00:23 - Newby 11 yard run

1:20:00 - Newby 8 yard run

1:26:55 - Armstrong 10 yard run

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76BtEL8q24Q

 

[GBRFAN]

The argument was that inside and outside runs were comparable. I didn't argue that they did or didn't have outside speed - that was just an added comment that went along with my point that the outside run wasn't so great.

Couple points:

You gave 5 plays. 2 of those 5 were actually designed outside runs for the RB. The other was an inside run that the RB took to the outside - it was also the last play of the half when we were 60 yards from the end zone so guessing the defense didn't care if we gained 10 yards. The other two plays were QB keepers after faking the handoff (up the middle to the RB). That play works because of the fake up the middle - if we never run up the middle then that play is of no value.

So i'm glad on 2 occasions in the game that we made some nice gains on the outside - guessing that we also had several outside runs that didn't do quite so well and i'm sure we could find 2+ runs up the middle that had nice gains.

Love how you come with the standard comment of "again you argue something I didn't say", however you are the one going down that street because my initial comment was " there were no easy yards around the line of scrimmage" - with the main point of my post being that this game had more to do with DL giving us trouble than Langs calling a poor game.

Seems like you have your blinders on and see things how you want to see them with out looking at the previous comments and making unbiased statements based on what has been said.

 

[lo country]

Why is Wisconsin the perfect example of what our offense will look like without a dual-threat quarterback? We're not allowed to look at Michigan, Michigan State, Washington, Boise, Oklahoma State, Miami or others for possible results of less-mobile-quarterback-heavy offenses?

I agree. See also Stanford, FSU, Clemson....... POB had 640 yrds on on 143 carries Junior year. 4.5/carry average..... He's not immobile. Far from it. A QB doesn't have to be a dual threat to be an effective runner. Just have to be a threat to extend plays with your legs. He appears to be quick enough, big enough etc.... to do some designed runs IMO.
An accurate, less mobile QB can be just as effective in the running game. One can't crowd the box with a QB capable of throwing all over the place. If you choose to double team receivers, it opens up the running game. A less mobile QB could look like a hypeman in those situations..... We've witnessed that enough.............

Stanford's offense is dead last in FBS in total offense this year. Florida State is using a dual threat QB as a freshman. Clemson uses a dual threat QB. Miami, FL is in the 60s in total offense, with a 3rd year starting QB. I will give Jake Browning at Washington, as he is great. Michigan State's offense is always a mess unless they have a future NFL QB there. Look at this year. Boise State is in the Mountain West and just lost to Wyoming. Oklahoma State has a good offense, but so does 3/4 of the Big 12.

Stanford traditionally uses a pro style QB with a solid game. Francois has only gotten positive yardage in 4 of their 8 games and Watson has only rushed for 324 this year. (Last year a lot more). Clemson does a great job of using Watson's legs to keep defenses honest. He can also make all the "pro throws" per talking heads.

POB is mobile enough to keep defenses honest per his HS numbers.....

 

[Count 'Bility]

This notion that just cuz the two QBs weve recruited are white and can make all the tgrows doesnt mean they are statues.

 

[Mavric]

The argument was that inside and outside runs were comparable. I didn't argue that they did or didn't have outside speed - that was just an added comment that went along with my point that the outside run wasn't so great.

Couple points:

You gave 5 plays. 2 of those 5 were actually designed outside runs for the RB. The other was an inside run that the RB took to the outside - it was also the last play of the half when we were 60 yards from the end zone so guessing the defense didn't care if we gained 10 yards. The other two plays were QB keepers after faking the handoff (up the middle to the RB). That play works because of the fake up the middle - if we never run up the middle then that play is of no value.

So i'm glad on 2 occasions in the game that we made some nice gains on the outside - guessing that we also had several outside runs that didn't do quite so well and i'm sure we could find 2+ runs up the middle that had nice gains.

Love how you come with the standard comment of "again you argue something I didn't say", however you are the one going down that street because my initial comment was " there were no easy yards around the line of scrimmage" - with the main point of my post being that this game had more to do with DL giving us trouble than Langs calling a poor game.

Seems like you have your blinders on and see things how you want to see them with out looking at the previous comments and making unbiased statements based on what has been said.

And you keep arguing against things I haven't said. In fact, arguing against things I've explicitly NOT said. I have never said to "never" run up the middle. In fact, I said the opposite earlier. Those plays work because of misdirection. I wish we did more of that. We don't do much.

And now you're discounting two of the runs just because they don't fit your argument. Instead of "guessing" there are some plays, why don't you actually do the research to make an argument. I'll even spot you one - Wilbon's run to the outside went nowhere. It's not a magic bullet. But we generally get more yards to the outside - we just don't do it much. I already said there wouldn't be many examples because we simply didn't call very many of those types of plays. If you'd like to demonstrate that there were a bunch of times we tried and failed, be my guest. Until then, you have nothing to stand on.

Ironic that the guy who was just claimed there were "no easy yards" then was just proved wrong but won't admit it is accusing others of having blinders. I mean, I guess you can semantic "easy" however you want. But that's five plays for 57 yards - over 11 yards per carry - because we actually tried to run to the outside instead of pound it right up the gut. Nothing is easy but those are a heck of a lot easier that trying to run into the heart of the defense.

 

[GBRFAN]

The argument was that inside and outside runs were comparable. I didn't argue that they did or didn't have outside speed - that was just an added comment that went along with my point that the outside run wasn't so great.

Couple points:

You gave 5 plays. 2 of those 5 were actually designed outside runs for the RB. The other was an inside run that the RB took to the outside - it was also the last play of the half when we were 60 yards from the end zone so guessing the defense didn't care if we gained 10 yards. The other two plays were QB keepers after faking the handoff (up the middle to the RB). That play works because of the fake up the middle - if we never run up the middle then that play is of no value.

So i'm glad on 2 occasions in the game that we made some nice gains on the outside - guessing that we also had several outside runs that didn't do quite so well and i'm sure we could find 2+ runs up the middle that had nice gains.

Love how you come with the standard comment of "again you argue something I didn't say", however you are the one going down that street because my initial comment was " there were no easy yards around the line of scrimmage" - with the main point of my post being that this game had more to do with DL giving us trouble than Langs calling a poor game.

Seems like you have your blinders on and see things how you want to see them with out looking at the previous comments and making unbiased statements based on what has been said.

And you keep arguing against things I haven't said. In fact, arguing against things I've explicitly NOT said. I have never said to "never" run up the middle. In fact, I said the opposite earlier. Those plays work because of misdirection. I wish we did more of that. We don't do much.

And now you're discounting two of the runs just because they don't fit your argument. Instead of "guessing" there are some plays, why don't you actually do the research to make an argument. I'll even spot you one - Wilbon's run to the outside went nowhere. It's not a magic bullet. But we generally get more yards to the outside - we just don't do it much. I already said there wouldn't be many examples because we simply didn't call very many of those types of plays. If you'd like to demonstrate that there were a bunch of times we tried and failed, be my guest. Until then, you have nothing to stand on.

Ironic that the guy who was just claimed there were "no easy yards" then was just proved wrong but won't admit it is accusing others of having blinders. I mean, I guess you can semantic "easy" however you want. But that's five plays for 57 yards - over 11 yards per carry - because we actually tried to run to the outside instead of pound it right up the gut. Nothing is easy but those are a heck of a lot easier that trying to run into the heart of the defense.

Likewise

again, never stated you said or didn't say anything about inside runs - that's you making up stuff and then saying that i'm the one doing it. I just used both inside/outside runs to show that neither was that great. If you think an average of 3.4 yards per carry is going to get you the W then so be it (seems to prove my point about - being tough yards around the line of scrimmage). If you take out your 5 chunk plays and assuming there were no more that were 9+ yards then our running stats were sitting around 2.4 per carry. Pretty hard to move the chains when 39 of your run plays averaged 2.4 yards.

So far most of my research has been from what I observed from watching the game - not sure how that is much different then yours, besides going and finding 5 plays that seem to be cherry picked since you didn't even give one example of the opposite until you were called out on it. I will go back and watch the game again within the next day or two and will try to do some of "your level" of research.

All plays set up other plays, as you mentioned that you would like to see more misdirection, I believe we ran an end around to Westy and it gained close to zero yards. The pass is also used to set up the run and run to set up pass / similar to inside plays to set up outside plays - unfortunately when you play a good defense you don't get 90 plays to do a lot of everything.

In another thread you accused me of name calling and not once did I call you a name - just stated that you are showing your true colors. However ironically, about 3 post early you called me ignorant - It's funny, almost like you are having a dream, you do something and then instantly accuse me of doing what you just did. Not sure how I set you off but maybe if you take a deep breath and read what I said then type what you want to say and then proof it about 4 times you may get to something worth posting that we can discuss logically.

 

[Landlord]

Why is Wisconsin the perfect example of what our offense will look like without a dual-threat quarterback? We're not allowed to look at Michigan, Michigan State, Washington, Boise, Oklahoma State, Miami or others for possible results of less-mobile-quarterback-heavy offenses?

I agree. See also Stanford, FSU, Clemson....... POB had 640 yrds on on 143 carries Junior year. 4.5/carry average..... He's not immobile. Far from it. A QB doesn't have to be a dual threat to be an effective runner. Just have to be a threat to extend plays with your legs. He appears to be quick enough, big enough etc.... to do some designed runs IMO.
An accurate, less mobile QB can be just as effective in the running game. One can't crowd the box with a QB capable of throwing all over the place. If you choose to double team receivers, it opens up the running game. A less mobile QB could look like a hypeman in those situations..... We've witnessed that enough.............

Stanford's offense is dead last in FBS in total offense this year. Florida State is using a dual threat QB as a freshman. Clemson uses a dual threat QB. Miami, FL is in the 60s in total offense, with a 3rd year starting QB. I will give Jake Browning at Washington, as he is great. Michigan State's offense is always a mess unless they have a future NFL QB there. Look at this year. Boise State is in the Mountain West and just lost to Wyoming. Oklahoma State has a good offense, but so does 3/4 of the Big 12.

Wait. You mean to tell me that offenses usually aren't that great when they don't have good quarterbacks?

Well shoot. I need to sit with this revelation for the rest of the day.

 

[Undone]

Remember roughly a month ago when our two primary resident Bo-lievers (one of whom thinks Navy is the template we should currently look to) said that 'Wisconsin's offense can be very potent?'

Now we have them implying that Wisconsin's offense is bad (which it is, this season) and that we will fall into their same fate next season.

Do you two actually watch the greater landscape of college football? The answer has to be "no." That's the only explanation for how you can come up with these arguments.

You can't actually see that we have the best WR group in the conference, and that having a stellar pocket passer to throw the ball to them (hypothetically, of course) will give us a chance at having a good showing on offense? You actually don't understand this?

 

[cm husker]

I'd love to see where someone argued that the Wisconsin offense is potent.

If you're referring to me, I've certainly never argued that we should strive to run a Wisconsin type offense - I think statute-based systems are destined to mediocrity or worse.

For all the arguments that great receivers will make a WCO style-offense amazing, there's actually very little evidence to support them.

There's a reason Urban Meyer flat out rejected that approach as a coordinator - he was tired of having great receivers who he couldn't get the ball to.

 

[Undone]

I'd love to see where someone argued that the Wisconsin offense is potent.

I know you're trolling. Hopefully I'll not have to respond to much more of your crap, but I did dig up the quote from you. It was in the 'What Did We Learn - Wyoming Edition' thread:

Wisconsin isn't my model becuase I like what the mobile QB causes a defense to have to do, but to pretend they are 3 yards and a cloud of dust becuase the are a run oriented team displays a serious misunderstanding of that kind of system. It can be quite "high octane."

 

[Undone]

And just to get ahead of your specific brand of trolling in which you play people with a game of "I didn't actually say that," high octane is synonymous with "potent."

You will invariably argue against that, because you're a troll, and you're just trying to piss all of us off with your entire troll account. But, you said it (in the context of trolling from *that* thread, but I digress).

 

[cm husker]

And just to get ahead of your specific brand of trolling in which you play people with a game of "I didn't actually say that," high octane is synonymous with "potent."

You will invariably argue against that, because you're a troll, and you're just trying to piss all of us off with your entire troll account. But, you said it (in the context of trolling from *that* thread, but I digress).

You'll note that that post was in September and was in response to your argument that we should be a "high octane, balanced" offense that isn't necessarily based on a "foundation of ... physical running" which is what the other poster in that thread recommended we try to do (a sentiment not based on nostaligia, but rather on evidence, and one that's echoed by many, including TO).

I specifically stated in the post you quoted that I didn't want Wisconsin's system - especially not as it is being run by Chryst. But, historically (i.e., prior to Chryst taking over as HC and them having very little at QB), that offense pretty strong - it wasn't just 3 yards and a cloud of dust.

If you follow the links below, you'll see, for example, that they averaged about 6.8 yards per play in '10, '11, '13 and '14. For reference, Baylor was half a yard better in '13 and slightly worse in '14.

Since Chryst took over and moved to his approach to offense, they've dropped to 5.29 ypa in '15 and are currently averaging 5.3 ypa this year. These are the lowest averages since the 2004 season (by a sizable margin).

http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings?doWhat=archive&sportCode=MFB

http://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/21/p2

 

[Landlord]

cm husker today - "i'd like to see someone argue that wisconsin's offense is potent"

cm husker a month ago - "wisconsin's offense can be quite high octane"

cm husker today - "no i didn't mean it like that"

 

[Saunders]

I've been one who has not been the biggest fan of Langsdorf due to his lack of creativity in the run game (like all of last year), but I really think we're hamstrung because of the OL.