Your 2024 Nebraska Cornhuskers
- Thread starter Undone
- Start date
Toe
Active member
Time for Athlong's annual Big Ten Coaches Talk Anonymously article...
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024
https://athlonsports.com/college-football/big-ten-coaches-talk-anonymously-about-conference-foes-for-2024
Undone
New member
Figured this is as good of a place to talk about this as any.
I think because the passing game was so terrible last year coupled with how big the news was of signing Raiola, I feel like the majority of the offensive discussion has been about what our passing game will be like this year.
But I'm wondering what the running game looks like.
We actually ranked 34th in the country in rushing yards per game. But the most obvious thing to talk about there is probably how much of those yards were put up by our QB's.
I think because the passing game was so terrible last year coupled with how big the news was of signing Raiola, I feel like the majority of the offensive discussion has been about what our passing game will be like this year.
But I'm wondering what the running game looks like.
We actually ranked 34th in the country in rushing yards per game. But the most obvious thing to talk about there is probably how much of those yards were put up by our QB's.
PattyG
New member
Hopefully a RB leads the team in both attempts and yards for rushing. Obviously I don't expect there to be as many rushing attempts this year but still expect a 60/40 split or similar.
I'll ignore the fact QB rushing in college includes scrambles and sacks below, but note that Haarberg in total averaged 4 yards per carry, with 477 total rushing yards. Raiola or Kaelin, as pretty strictly pocket passers, would presumably average about 1.5-2.0 yards per carry based on what similar pocket passer types average. They'd likely be in the positive, but not by a lot.
I'm not discounting the possibility of the QB run being significant. Guys like Tommie Frasier and Lamar Jackson averaged 6-7 yards per carry for a season. We didn't have those guys back there, and we didn't have an offensive coordinator familiar in any system that highlights a guy like that. People would criticize Haarberg on the option for not pitching it, and while there are certainly times he should have, most of the time there were just too many defenders waiting at the bus stop.
That's the crux of why QB rushing yards are not really a big factor in this team's rushing production. Box count is the biggest indicator of a rushing plays success. Simple math, the defense wants +1. That's one guy for every blocker, +1 for the ball carrier. In theory, the QB in the run game adds an extra man for the offense for the defense to have to account for. The problem for Nebraska was, the defense had no problem doing that because they'd stack the box all day, anyhow. 8 man boxes were common, and usually a potential conflict LB could cheat inside for a 9th man because we did such a poor job using our passing game to help our run game.
When the QB run game was good, and remember we're ignoring scrambles and sacks, it was because the box count was good. We didn't have the scheme or the talent at QB to make the running game good when the numbers weren't favorable. There are offenses like the option, veer, read option that all highlight the QB and make him someone that you must account for that then makes it easier for other producers, but Satterfield just isn't the guy that's well versed in the sequencing and micro adjustments those systems need. Nebraska by cfbstats numbers was 39th in rushing yards per game, but 54th in per carry average. Kansas, a team that does a much better job incorporating the QB run game, was 9th per game and T9th in average.
What is Satterfield good at? He can be a pretty creative play designer, particularly when it comes to personnel. Better spacing, and more mismatches for the defense to account for, will create (IMO) a better overall run game this year than we saw last year.
Pretty much this. We our struggles throwing the ball - and pass protection to some extent - we didn't give defenses a lot to worry about. So they could focus on stopping the run. Giving them something "unexpected" with the QB run game helped create space - plus having QBs who could take advantage.
I assume we'll be more balanced, which will mean a dropoff in production from the running game. But I think we'll still be efficient and the gains made in the passing game will more than make up the difference.
Rhule's numbers from his 10 win seasons at Temple and Baylor suggests both of those things, though maybe not so much the dropoff. Expect 45-55% pass percentage, depending on game situations, and about 155-170 rush yards per game. Nebraska was at 38% and 178 yards per game last year.
An element that may (or may not) impact this is the pace of play this year with the new headset rules. There is a presumption out there that the overall pace of play may speed up, and even if Nebraska's doesn't directly, an increase in scoring and the opponent's pace of play may mean more possessions than we saw last year.
BigRedBuster
Well-known member
You think the headsets will speed up play? I had read somewhere just the opposite because more teams will use the huddle since the entire team isn't looking at the sidelines getting the plays.
The percentage of passes to runs will be interesting. I think that Rhule likes a pretty balanced attack. But, if it looks like Raola is needing some time in the season to settle in and get used to the speed of college ball, I could see the runs being a higher percentage early to help him get there. If he gets really comfortable, and our WRs are as good as advertised, I could see the passing being a higher percentage.
There's just so many unknowns with a true freshman at QB.
I'm skeptical that there will be a significant shift in how teams are calling plays. So I agree with you questioning if pace of play will change much.
I worded it the way I did because I don't know. Rhule made a comment on it sometime this spring that I can't seem to find, maybe I will later and edit it in.
The general argument for why it may speed the game up is that the headset shuts off at 15 seconds so the defense will be more hesitant to show much early. One approach teams may use, especially those that are already using a lot of signals, is to still not huddle, get to the line, then see if there is an adjustment to be made before the headset shuts off.
It could have an effect either way or no effect, I think there's an argument both ways, but who knows. It can take years sometimes for teams to adjust to something like this.
My answer above, 5% either way, is very likely true, but still a bit of a cop out. Out of 133 teams, about 15-20 in any given year are outside of 10% either way, and over half of the teams are within that 5% range. When you look at how game situations decide how much you run, how screens get classified, RPOs, QB scrambles....you easily, depending on team, can have 5-10 plays a game that get counted as a run even if that wasn't your real intent. Everything is counted as a run until it's legally a forward pass.
I've said for years that pass-run ratios are a garbage stat. Almost everyone is within a fairly narrow range, and the few outliers are apparent 10 seconds into the tape. Situational tendencies are meaningful, though. Take 2nd and 10 from your own 30. There are teams where that is a screen/draw situation, others want to get it downfield to get 3rd and short. Some teams don't believe in running on second down if it was a failed run on first down (usually less than 5 yards). There are a lot of specific tendencies that do matter, but the overall number just isn't very illustrative.
Mike Leach was asked years ago about having a 'balanced' offense and he said the word meant he passed it to all 5 guys. Probably a better definition than the one the rest of us use.
Undone
New member
Agree on run/pass ratio being way over-analyzed by both analysts and fans.
Making a big jump in first down effectiveness would maybe give us our biggest boost. It does seem like what we'll do is kind of act like we're lining up in a big, boring bunch set to do a RB handoff, but then we'll motion the big guys way out wide and then create a quick read situation for Raiola.
It'll probably not be all that heavy on the "R" in RPO; I think the read a lot of times might wind up being whether to quickly throw it to a first-read outside tall guy for a little screen play, or whether to look back inside/down the field for a man.
We have got to figure out how to spread defenses out, it's just not even an argument. Spread them out, thin them out - whatever language we want to use. And it's not just that we've struggled to field a good passing QB that has held us back from doing this, it's also about play design & scheme.
And with all of the resources we have and the head of steam Rhule is building I think it's just flat out dumb if we can't excel at our play design & scheme heading into this season. Just no excuse.
Making a big jump in first down effectiveness would maybe give us our biggest boost. It does seem like what we'll do is kind of act like we're lining up in a big, boring bunch set to do a RB handoff, but then we'll motion the big guys way out wide and then create a quick read situation for Raiola.
It'll probably not be all that heavy on the "R" in RPO; I think the read a lot of times might wind up being whether to quickly throw it to a first-read outside tall guy for a little screen play, or whether to look back inside/down the field for a man.
We have got to figure out how to spread defenses out, it's just not even an argument. Spread them out, thin them out - whatever language we want to use. And it's not just that we've struggled to field a good passing QB that has held us back from doing this, it's also about play design & scheme.
And with all of the resources we have and the head of steam Rhule is building I think it's just flat out dumb if we can't excel at our play design & scheme heading into this season. Just no excuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing that has me excited about spring is the improvement. Much of what we saw was tried last year, but it was refined, called and executed at a much higher level this year. Coming in I said the QB I was wanting to watch the most was Haarberg, not Raiola. Sometimes you just bring in better talent and he throws everyone open and suddenly you're offense looks great. Not only did Haarberg, personally, make a big jump but now the offensive designs that we couldn't effectively execute with him last year look a lot better regardless of whom was back there.
The thing with RPOs is you don't always know as the observer that it was an RPO. Whatever key you're reading on that play may be so strong that the entire decision was made pre-snap. You'll see this exchange with reporters in the postgame a lot. They'll note to the coach that they ran the ball so much more that day and the coach will give them sort of a condescending response. To the coach, it sounds like sort of a dumb question because he knows they were RPOs and that he'd been calling those same plays all season but the defense just gave them a certain look that day.
We also know through both actions and some snippets from interviews that the QBs have some ability to check into/out of certain things based on presnap looks. I'm very curious how that progresses through the course of the season.
Satterfield isn't historically big on shifting. Some motion here and there, but not near as much as a lot of teams do. At South Carolina he'd run more of these compression sets with multiple TEs and he just lined up that way and snapped it. Maybe a WR or RB would go in motion sometimes, but not a lot of window dressing.
More likely what you'll see is something like that TE screen that Fidone caught early in the spring game. Fidone is reading the LBs and if they come hard, like they did because it was only a 6 man box with 2 high safety, then he bails for the pass. On that kind of play you're going to get that TE most of the time, it's really more of a screen with a backside run attached and that's how a lot of those RPOs work.
Success rate is a popular metric these days and it's definition varies slightly place to place, but generally defined as getting half the yards on first down, half again on 2nd down, then obviously achieving a first down on 3rd/4th. Nebraska's first down success rate, so generally 5 yards or more, was only 35%. Especially when you have no short or intermediate passing game, it's really hard to move the chains if 2/3rd of the time it's 2nd and 7, 2nd and 8 and so on.
Last edited by a moderator:
