To Coach Riley - RUN THE BALL

[jsneb83]

Here's what we know about the rush numbers .... First off, the rush vs pass attempts and production were poor in the first half. We were pass heavy. In terms of the overall attempts for the game 37 run and 41 pass is deceptive. Subtract all of Armstrong's runs as they were scrambles. Subtract jet sweeps as they are trick plays, not run set ups. End arounds, or jet sweeps, are plays where you are just hoping like heckler to make the corner. How many times have you seen an end around ball carrier take the ball, stop short and cut against the grain of the defense like an RB would do? Running backs have in their nature to pick through defenders, follow blocks and exploit holes in the defense. Back to those numbers, subtract about 15 rush attempts. Now it's 41 pass and 22 rush, which is about what it felt like, well, to me anyway.

LOL jet sweeps are not trick plays. Seriously? How does that even make sense?

Also, the jet sweep IS a run set up. Because its a dive/gut play that you run off of it. Or trap.

It doesn't

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

It made me think of this....

I am pretty sure our coaches have some experience in what they are doing

But do the players? #SquarePegsRoundHoles

 

[RunRedRun]

It made me think of this....

I am pretty sure our coaches have some experience in what they are doing

But do the players? #SquarePegsRoundHoles

Since the comment was directed towards the coaching staff, not sure how this is relevant. #stayfocused

 

[Thanks_Tom RR]

It made me think of this....

I am pretty sure our coaches have some experience in what they are doing

But do the players? #SquarePegsRoundHoles

Since the comment was directed towards the coaching staff, not sure how this is relevant. #stayfocused

I was implying that the coaches were forcing a scheme that does not highlight the strength of the players. Thus, my comment is direct toward the coaching staff. #stayrelevant

I will add that I was being a bit facetious in my response as a single game my not be the best sample size to predict how the coach plans on running the offense (pun intended there).

 

[shyndy]

I actually thought this was some of the best offensive play calling we've seen in years. Even the rough second quarter would have been a lot better if we could hit the middle screen better, would have opened things up more the way they were playing us. Only complaint would be working Armstrong into the run game more as others have noted we didn't see many options or read options but who knows there may have been a reason for that. One of the read options we ran resulted in a turnover so, w/e. Love seeing us run some actual rollout passes, maybe more of those in the second instead of the shotgun heavy calls we went with, but again not a deal breaker. I actually think the staff did a good job of recognizing in the second half when the run game was opening up, you could feel the momentum with every decent run.

 

[The Dude]

Heard on another Husker-related message board Tommy may have been spotted wearing a walking boot after the game.

The Curse of Taylor Martinez's Locker if you ask me.

Might have had something to do with the lack of runs if true.

 

[Igetbored216]

Heard on another Husker-related message board Tommy may have been spotted wearing a walking boot after the game.

The Curse of Taylor Martinez's Locker if you ask me.

Might have had something to do with the lack of runs if true.

You are correct. He was in a boot. So was Moore..and well, a lot of other players actually. Definitely not a good first game injury-wise.

 

[lo country]

Heard on another Husker-related message board Tommy may have been spotted wearing a walking boot after the game.

The Curse of Taylor Martinez's Locker if you ask me.

Might have had something to do with the lack of runs if true.

You are correct. He was in a boot. So was Moore..and well, a lot of other players actually. Definitely not a good first game injury-wise.

So said bleacher report, but I couldn't find the article. Hopefully precautionary to let it heal/rehab.......

 

[Sargon]

I was expecting some "run the damn ball" threads. Thanks for not dissapointing and titling it correctly so I didn't have to read it.

Yet, you still entered and commented.

Twas quality sarcasm bro. Well done 4s....

 

[Igetbored216]

Heard on another Husker-related message board Tommy may have been spotted wearing a walking boot after the game.

The Curse of Taylor Martinez's Locker if you ask me.

Might have had something to do with the lack of runs if true.

You are correct. He was in a boot. So was Moore..and well, a lot of other players actually. Definitely not a good first game injury-wise.

So said bleacher report, but I couldn't find the article. Hopefully precautionary to let it heal/rehab.......

I'm pretty sure I read it on Omaha.com, but can't find the article I saw it in. Tommy was asked about it and he said he would be fine.

 

[alwayshusking]

I agree that we need to be able to run it better. Just to add a note, we ran 14 screens/smoke routes yesterday. Those can be viewed as perimeter running plays and are a good supplement for a running game until the OL starts blocking some folks.

Those 14 plays went for 93 yards and 2 TDs

 

[Mavric]

We averaged 3.4 yards on 37 run plays and 7.8 yards on 41 pass plays. I know I'm being Captain Obvious here, but we don't need to run more often, we need to run better.

Bingo.

I said in a status update we were 48% Run in the game yesterday. It's less than what I want to see, but if the passing game is working well, which it was at 59% completion, the run game should work better. I'm not sure if its scheme or personnel. But you are right, it needs to be more efficient in the run game.

Hats off to BYU selling out to stop the run, they were shooting gaps all day long. Moving in and out of a 4-3 to 3-4 isn't easy for OL to get a feel for where the defense is coming from. I think we'll be alright. I really do. As long as we improve efficiency in the running game NU will be alright. I think the D will play much better two when the QB can't run as well.

A lot of this is in how the stats are presented.

Three sacks count against the running stats even though they were called as pass plays. Plus two intentional grounding calls that don't show up as actual plays. I know TA scrambled on at least one play, might have been another. So there are almost always more called pass plays than show up in the stats. Of course, there are plays nullified by penalties as well but just moving the sacks and intentional grounding penalties to to passing side of the ledger makes it 46 passing plays against 34 running plays which is 57.5% passing while changing the average per play to 5.9 yards per play on passing plays against 4.4 yards per play running the ball. Still better passing but not nearly the discrepancy that it looks like at first.