McKewon: Are We Overestimating Our Ability to Run the Ball

I think one of the biggest issues with our offense is lack of identity. What is the one thing you do well? You need 5 yards, what is the play that almost always gets it? We haven't really had that under Beck. You just keep hearing that we want to be multiple. Multiple. Jack of all trades, master of none.
See I think McKewon's excellent analysis suggests the exact opposite. The dominant teams, which presumably have this offensive "identity" we crave, are efficient at both running and passing the ball. When it's 3rd and 5 they don't have one play that almost always gets it. They have a few to choose from, because every defense has film of every game. Their offensive success isn't from creating an identity, unless that identity is good athletes who are mentally prepared and able to execute a diverse play selection. The Top 10 is full of teams who are master of all trades. That's where excellence comes from.

I think we have a promising offense and should have a solid running game. McKewon's point seems to be that memories of Nebraska's impressive running attack are pretty selective, and dreams of just ramming Abdullah down the opponent's throat might be misguided.
THANK YOU! I am so sick of this non-specific language that almost seems to suggest some kind of magical thinking. That if the team had "identity" then everything would be fine... or even better. I have never heard a good explanation of what "identity" means in this context or exactly how having it would make things better. It seems, at best, to be a stand in for "consistency," but even that is a little vague. It has become one of those words that is said and repeated enough that it garners and air of substance, but it really doesn't actually even begin to suggest what should be done. (Imagine that if you were at work and your boss came in and said that unless you developed an identity you'd be fired.)

Besides, the way the huskers played for the last several years IS part of their identity. Being inconsistent, having constantly shifting strengths and weaknesses, and so on can be a part of an identity. The idea that they don't have one at all is absurd from the start. They just don't have an identity that people would like them to have.

 
I think one of the biggest issues with our offense is lack of identity. What is the one thing you do well? You need 5 yards, what is the play that almost always gets it? We haven't really had that under Beck. You just keep hearing that we want to be multiple. Multiple. Jack of all trades, master of none.
See I think McKewon's excellent analysis suggests the exact opposite. The dominant teams, which presumably have this offensive "identity" we crave, are efficient at both running and passing the ball. When it's 3rd and 5 they don't have one play that almost always gets it. They have a few to choose from, because every defense has film of every game. Their offensive success isn't from creating an identity, unless that identity is good athletes who are mentally prepared and able to execute a diverse play selection. The Top 10 is full of teams who are master of all trades. That's where excellence comes from.

I think we have a promising offense and should have a solid running game. McKewon's point seems to be that memories of Nebraska's impressive running attack are pretty selective, and dreams of just ramming Abdullah down the opponent's throat might be misguided.
THANK YOU! I am so sick of this non-specific language that almost seems to suggest some kind of magical thinking. That if the team had "identity" then everything would be fine... or even better. I have never heard a good explanation of what "identity" means in this context or exactly how having it would make things better. It seems, at best, to be a stand in for "consistency," but even that is a little vague. It has become one of those words that is said and repeated enough that it garners and air of substance, but it really doesn't actually even begin to suggest what should be done. (Imagine that if you were at work and your boss came in and said that unless you developed an identity you'd be fired.)

Besides, the way the huskers played for the last several years IS part of their identity. Being inconsistent, having constantly shifting strengths and weaknesses, and so on can be a part of an identity. The idea that they don't have one at all is absurd from the start. They just don't have an identity that people would like them to have.
Agree.

It seems like people think we should just be able to go against the best teams on our schedule, line up and run the ball almost every play and our O line should look like they are manhandling everyone else on the field. News flash....the other teams have good players too.

 
Ameer Abdullah will end his career as No. 2 on the all time career rushing list behind Mike Rozier and ahead of Ahman Green.

Any discussion of our run game not being up to par needs to cease.
I don't think anyone is saying the running game won't be good. The question is, "How good?" Sam's article is saying that it won't be so good that we'll just run over everyone and rarely need to pass - or at least that's what I took from it.
UCLA was the only good team we played early, and I don't remember us even coming close to man-handing them up front. And that was before any OL were hurt (I think Spencer was the first during the Purdue game). Does anyone really think we'll have the kind of talent at OL to be able to run over the better teams on the schedule?
You might be right, but then I guess i don't get the rocket science behind this or the need to write a full article about it. Isn't this the most no brainer thing ever? Not to be too all over the guys writing because I think he does a fine job, but this article you're telling me is basically saying this: Nebraska can run the ball pretty well, but sometimes they will have to pass.

No kidding. Hmm....

Again, I've said this before but I hate the percentage discussion if run/pass. It's about being effective when you pass. If Nebraska runs the ball 40 times, and throws the ball 10 times, but each of those ten times is a completion and effectively moves the chains, it will make the defense have to be honest. The main thing for me right now is that all evidence supports Nebraska at least being committed to the run game first and building it's passing attack off the run.
I agree.

IMO, the article is meant to counter the "if only we'd run more" mentality that some fans have when discussing Beck's play-calling. The point is that teams like MSU and Iowa (and others) can stop a one-dimensional attack.

 
Sam forgot that we were JUST running the ball perfectly fine against Minnesota and Michigan St.
And we did not run well against UCLA (3.0 ypc), Michigan (3.0 ypc), Iowa (2.4 ypc), and Georgia (3.3 ypc). And below average against Northwestern (3.9 ypc) and PSU (4.1 ypc). You're making Sam's point that fans are primarily looking back at the MSU game as evidence NU can simply run the ball and win without considering the other games.

So the stats support needing to pass against at least some of those teams. Even if the injuries on the OL account for most of those low ypc as knapplc suggests, do you really think we'd be able to run over all those teams?

 
Conference play stats...

Rushing Offense

http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category01/sort02.html

Passing Offense

http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category02/sort04.html

Bigger concern? 4th in the conference in running the ball or last in passing?
Being last in passing (per attempt) isn't surprising considering how much we run the ball and we didn't complete a great percentage. That would be the number I'd like to see go up. We don't need to throw it a lot but we need to be efficient when we do.

I think we can be higher in rushing yards per attempt but it's not out of line for how the year went last year.

 
Conference play stats...

Rushing Offense

http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category01/sort02.html

Passing Offense

http://www.cfbstats.com/2013/leader/827/team/offense/split07/category02/sort04.html

Bigger concern? 4th in the conference in running the ball or last in passing?
Being last in passing (per attempt) isn't surprising considering how much we run the ball and we didn't complete a great percentage. That would be the number I'd like to see go up. We don't need to throw it a lot but we need to be efficient when we do.

I think we can be higher in rushing yards per attempt but it's not out of line for how the year went last year.
Agreed but the team was also last in 'efficiency'. Look at Minnesota, they threw less than and had the worst percentage completed but were 6th in yards per attempt and had a higher efficiency. If they get better and passing, running the ball will be easier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't really read the article, but lets see if I can counter most of his points:
what
Didn't read the entire article, read peoples comments above me that I would assume were related to the points made by the author and countered them.

what
Seems like reading the article would be a prerequisite, but guess not
Ever took a test by reading the spark notes version of the book and still got an A?

Context clues, my friend, context clues. If you'd like, you can feel free to point out where I erred in my explanation/defense of our running game in accordance with what McKewon wrote/in response to other posters?

Otherwise, if there is no issue, I don't see what the problem is.

Also, it appears other posters (look about 5 posts up - Knapplc) mentions that injuries were completely neglected in the post... so...

Are you just looking to start something because I didn't read every piece of the article or what?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon-stewart-popcorn11.gif


 
Ever took a test by reading the spark notes version of the book and still got an A?
Context clues, my friend, context clues. If you'd like, you can feel free to point out where I erred in my explanation/defense of our running game in accordance with what McKewon wrote/in response to other posters?

Otherwise, if there is no issue, I don't see what the problem is.

Also, it appears other posters (look about 5 posts up - Knapplc) mentions that injuries were completely neglected in the post... so...

Are you just looking to start something because I didn't read every piece of the article or what?
Wow.

 
Back
Top