The Future of the Husker's Rushing Attack

[Enhance]

Dislcaimer: Leave the 'Fire Riley' garbage elsewhere right now. I don't want to talk about it or care about it in this thread. I'd like to talk about the here and now.

----------

Now, onto Devine Ozigbo.

7 carries, 70 yards, a touchdown and a long of 31.

Granted, it was one game, and it was against Illinois. But, they're giving up 117 yards on the ground per game right now to rank 26th in the country, and Ozigbo looked really good against them. Challenged his defenders, made big plays and really was a bright spot on a dark day.

Where are our thoughts right now on this position group? Ozigbo and Janovich looked the best by far today. Newby put out another uninspired performance. Granted, we actually need to call run plays for them to get the ball...

 

[Hayseed]

New coaching staff, Power I?

 

[huskerfan92]

https://nebraska.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1810045

***Langsdorf was asked if in retrospect he wishes he would have stuck more with the running game.

"I think we had almost 200 yards rushing - I think we did that," Langsdorf said. "But it's hard to go convert those three runs in a row. The third down runs are tough when you're third and medium, and we did not convert there. That was really a bad situation for us."

There is no future with quotes like these

 

[Bowfin]

There is no future with quotes like these

I agree. This coaching staff doesn't seem to believe it's possible to consistently run the ball with success. They also don't believe in doing whatever is successful until the other team shows that they can stop it.

I also think Riley is absolutely floored by the feedback he is getting from the fans and media here in Nebraska. He is used to coaching in an environment where 80% of the people in Corvallis couldn't tell you if Oregon State won or lost their last game, let alone what is wrong with the present pass defense or how to manage the clock in the last minute.

 

[74Hunter]

https://nebraska.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1810045

***Langsdorf was asked if in retrospect he wishes he would have stuck more with the running game.

"I think we had almost 200 yards rushing - I think we did that," Langsdorf said. "But it's hard to go convert those three runs in a row. The third down runs are tough when you're third and medium, and we did not convert there. That was really a bad situation for us."

There is no future with quotes like these

Tom Osborne disagrees with Langsahan.

 

[PaulCrewe]

I'd take a hard look up front before declaring anything about the backfield. The interior three struggled today not the first game for them.

Gates played arguably his worse game if the year, yet Alex played arguably his best.

If you're going to continue to try to run it there instead of attacking the edge ,which fits your athletes best, then you best be looking for help on the inside.

 

[zoogs]

Ozigbo finishes his runs with authority, which seems to be lacking a little in Newby -- but Newby is still the most complete player in other ways. If that's our 1-2 punch going forward I have no complaints. Hope it lights a fire under Newby, too.

Really pleasant surprise from the true freshman RB.

 

[lo country]

https://nebraska.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1810045

***Langsdorf was asked if in retrospect he wishes he would have stuck more with the running game.

"I think we had almost 200 yards rushing - I think we did that," Langsdorf said. "But it's hard to go convert those three runs in a row. The third down runs are tough when you're third and medium, and we did not convert there. That was really a bad situation for us."

There is no future with quotes like these

Tom Osborne disagrees with Langsahan.

Hahaha. I saw what you did there!

Dude goes 7 for 70 yards and you really have to ask what is our future of the running attack. Not a dig at the OP, but that sums it up. When we ran, we ran well, but Langs pulled a Beck or a Watson or any other "awesome" OC we have had the past 10+ years and abandoned it. The quote above is telling. Langs and Riley a) have no desire to run the ball and b) no experience doing it as their focal plan of attack.

Today was the perfect opportunity to run the ball. Wet, windy field and you want to go all Mike Leach. Stupid decision. Square peg meet round hole.

I still like Jano as the featured back. May not have the break away speed, but he sticks his foot to the ground and gets north and south. Oz very similar IMO.

 

[BIG ERN]

Anyone but Newby as I've expressed but was told "trust the coaches" Oz looked solid, Jano is nice. I still think seeing Wilbon would add another good change of pace.

But it doesn't matter when the coaching staff thinks Tommy (average passer) needs to throw 30 times/game. 10/31, 1 INT = BAD TERRIBLE

 

[Mavric]

https://nebraska.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1810045

***Langsdorf was asked if in retrospect he wishes he would have stuck more with the running game.

"I think we had almost 200 yards rushing - I think we did that," Langsdorf said. "But it's hard to go convert those three runs in a row. The third down runs are tough when you're third and medium, and we did not convert there. That was really a bad situation for us."

There is no future with quotes like these

Reminds me - in a bad way - of Frank Solich.

Still remember early in his HC/OC tenure where Solich was asked after a game why he was running the fullback so much. His response was something to the effect of "you have to run the fullback to keep them honest against the option." I just sat there dumbfounded. The only thing I could think was "you've been here for how long - as a RB and RB coach no less - and you haven't figured out that we ALWAYS run the option all game until they forget about the fullback then bust a couple big runs up the middle late?" Never had any doubt after that that he was in over his head - for sure as an OC and probably more.

I see the same thing in these comments. If you came out of this game thinking you did a good job sticking with the running game, you're beyond hope of ever getting it.

 

[RedRex]

https://nebraska.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1810045

***Langsdorf was asked if in retrospect he wishes he would have stuck more with the running game.

"I think we had almost 200 yards rushing - I think we did that," Langsdorf said. "But it's hard to go convert those three runs in a row. The third down runs are tough when you're third and medium, and we did not convert there. That was really a bad situation for us."

There is no future with quotes like these

Reminds me - in a bad way - of Frank Solich.

Still remember early in his HC/OC tenure where Solich was asked after a game why he was running the fullback so much. His response was something to the effect of "you have to run the fullback to keep them honest against the option." I just sat there dumbfounded. The only thing I could think was "you've been here for how long - as a RB and RB coach no less - and you haven't figured out that we ALWAYS run the option all game until they forget about the fullback then bust a couple big runs up the middle late?" Never had any doubt after that that he was in over his head - for sure as an OC and probably more.

I see the same thing in these comments. If you came out of this game thinking you did a good job sticking with the running game, you're beyond hope of ever getting it.

Agree with the sentiment but I don't think Solich forgot, just poorly worded response to the question. Remember the issues we were having with the RB's then muffing the pitch or just plain screwing the option play altogether. Judd Davies WAS his most reliable back.

However, like you said the FB trap works best when you've got the def. cheating to the edges from a healthy dose of option.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

This staff has been pretty manic about who gets the ball running wise. Seems like a completely different strategy each game. The way things have been so far, I wouldn't be surprised if Ozigbo doesn't see the field the rest of the season.