Spring Practice - Running Backs

[admo]

we are about to become a throw it on 2nd and 3rd down, i can't see us running more than 40% of the time.

I support Mike Riley, but listening to what he says, about "protecting" the OL in terms of scheme: running screens, draws, and "being smart" about how they go about things...

To me, and maybe I am over-reacting/thinking, but yo your point, I think Nebraska is going to be become a soft, finesse, pass team--like under Callahan.

Like, I understand there are a lot of ways to win games, but if Mike Riley has any designs on actually winning the Big 10 or more, we're going to have to be physical, especially along the OL. And that means running the ball.

I guess "soft" is in the eye of the beholder. I think we'll tend to pass. But most of our running plays will be straight ahead which some will label as pounding it.

Of course, I'm far from convinced of the effectiveness of our running game. And I think we will throw a significant percentage of quick passes, which is probably what you're referring to.

I'm just waiting for "those passes are really part of the running game" to become an anthem.

I can see that too, but I hope and pray it doesn't. Does anyone in the media even ask OCDL about it (so much straight ahead run plays and not much variety)? And why won't we see more plays in space for the backs for the running game? Because that's how most big plays happen. And it's not like the defenders in the box are worried about play action. I mean, every opponent knows which direction we run. Right at them. And it's not pounding it or power football. It's just me shaking my head and doing this:

 

[swmohusker]

we are about to become a throw it on 2nd and 3rd down, i can't see us running more than 40% of the time.

I support Mike Riley, but listening to what he says, about "protecting" the OL in terms of scheme: running screens, draws, and "being smart" about how they go about things...

To me, and maybe I am over-reacting/thinking, but yo your point, I think Nebraska is going to be become a soft, finesse, pass team--like under Callahan.

Like, I understand there are a lot of ways to win games, but if Mike Riley has any designs on actually winning the Big 10 or more, we're going to have to be physical, especially along the OL. And that means running the ball.

I guess "soft" is in the eye of the beholder. I think we'll tend to pass. But most of our running plays will be straight ahead which some will label as pounding it.

Of course, I'm far from convinced of the effectiveness of our running game. And I think we will throw a significant percentage of quick passes, which is probably what you're referring to.

I'm just waiting for "those passes are really part of the running game" to become an anthem.

No, if the ball leaves the QBs hand, and travels through the air, it's a pass. (Or a fumble...lol)
Straight ahead runs are fine. Isos between the #1 and 2 holes, need to be a staple of our offense. But we also need to run through the 3-9 holes also. We need to be able to run counters, traps, counter traps, etc

That's why I never really liked the "pro" or "weak" formations with the off-set FB. It is an automatic clue as to what's coming.

I dunno, maybe I should just give up hope that Tom Osborne's running game will sneak its way back into Nebraska's playbook. Not saying we should run the option, but the variety of running plays, ways to block those plays, personnel groupings, it made defending that running game nigh impossible in one week of practice.

Anyway, I'm hoping Riley is sincere in wanting to have a running game in the top 3 of the conference because the last two years we've failed at that miserably.

Could be a toss or a pitch.

 

[swmohusker]

we are about to become a throw it on 2nd and 3rd down, i can't see us running more than 40% of the time.

I support Mike Riley, but listening to what he says, about "protecting" the OL in terms of scheme: running screens, draws, and "being smart" about how they go about things...

To me, and maybe I am over-reacting/thinking, but yo your point, I think Nebraska is going to be become a soft, finesse, pass team--like under Callahan.

Like, I understand there are a lot of ways to win games, but if Mike Riley has any designs on actually winning the Big 10 or more, we're going to have to be physical, especially along the OL. And that means running the ball.

I guess "soft" is in the eye of the beholder. I think we'll tend to pass. But most of our running plays will be straight ahead which some will label as pounding it.

Of course, I'm far from convinced of the effectiveness of our running game. And I think we will throw a significant percentage of quick passes, which is probably what you're referring to.

I'm just waiting for "those passes are really part of the running game" to become an anthem.

No, if the ball leaves the QBs hand, and travels through the air, it's a pass. (Or a fumble...lol)
Straight ahead runs are fine. Isos between the #1 and 2 holes, need to be a staple of our offense. But we also need to run through the 3-9 holes also. We need to be able to run counters, traps, counter traps, etc

That's why I never really liked the "pro" or "weak" formations with the off-set FB. It is an automatic clue as to what's coming.

I dunno, maybe I should just give up hope that Tom Osborne's running game will sneak its way back into Nebraska's playbook. Not saying we should run the option, but the variety of running plays, ways to block those plays, personnel groupings, it made defending that running game nigh impossible in one week of practice.

Anyway, I'm hoping Riley is sincere in wanting to have a running game in the top 3 of the conference because the last two years we've failed at that miserably.

How is the FB a tell in far and near I sets? You like power, counter and traps but you don't like those formations? Off set FB you can run all sorts of power, counter, split zone, lead zone, isolated, wham and etc. FB can lead the play or be a replacer but he does not have to be a tell. Not sure if you know as much about run game as you think you do.

 

[girlknowsfootball]

Our starting running back will be the guy who is best at these things:

- knows the offense (smart)

- pass protection

- good hands to catch the ball

- ball security (doesn't fumble)

- elusiveness in space

- not afraid to hit the inside hole hard and gain extra yards after contact

Right now:

Ozigbo lacks in his pass protection, his elusiveness in space, and his hands to catch in open space. His skill set is best for a power offense with a dual threat QB he doesn't have to protect well.

Wilbon has struggled to learn the offense. Mentally the college game is hard for him. He also needed to make improvements in pass protection and his ability to run inside.

Bryant is the most even at the things being asked. He has had some ball security issues and is still learning the offense. He also needs to run harder inside and gain muscle to pound the inside hole.

The reason we can't find a great back is because we have 3 backs who are all great at different things and who all have different weaknesses. Thus Reggie gets pass protection from Bryant but he fumbles, he gets great play on the check downs and in space from Wilbon, but he can't pass protect and doesn't know the whole offense well, he gets great power inside game from Ozigbo but he's a little slow outside and can't pass protect. So we need a guy who is more versitile and can do all that is asked with a great grasp of the offense.

 

[Enhance]

Someone always has to be that douche and bring up irrelevant stats. I mean hell we have the stays after 1 game so I guess we just shouldn't play the rest. You can't even argue that if Wilbon isn't the best back we have as a runner. Sure he has stuff he can work on but he's definitely our best runner. And the only way he's going to be a complete back is reps.

Actually, you can pretty easily argue Wilbon isn't the best runner we have. He was fourth among our backs last year in overall attempts and (no surprises) had the fourth most yards at 89. The truth is we don't have a lot of data on him as fans.

If playing time was based off eye candy and magic then sure, Wilbon is unequivocally our best runner.

Actually you could easily counter this argument as you're assuming these coaches know how to property handle and coordinate a good/solid running game. I don't think they do but everyone is entitled to their own opinions on that.

So, one could easily argue Wilbon is the best back because the coaches don't know how to handle/coordinate a good solid running game? That's incredibly obtuse and unsubstantiated by physical evidence.

My argument is based on data supplemented by my opinion - that argument is based almost entirely on opinion.

Nebraska finished 9th in rushing in the B1G last year... Behind the likes of Maryland, Minnesota and Iowa just to name a few...

You're presenting a confusing argument - now you're talking about overall rushing attack.

You tried to contradict my argument by essentially saying Wilbon is the best back because our coaches don't know how to coordinate a solid running game. That's the 'obtuse' part I'm talking about. Wilbon has yet to prove in practice or on the field that he's the best back, but somehow he is the best back and we just don't know it because the coaches, in essence, suck?

 

[BIG ERN]

Someone always has to be that douche and bring up irrelevant stats. I mean hell we have the stays after 1 game so I guess we just shouldn't play the rest. You can't even argue that if Wilbon isn't the best back we have as a runner. Sure he has stuff he can work on but he's definitely our best runner. And the only way he's going to be a complete back is reps.

Actually, you can pretty easily argue Wilbon isn't the best runner we have. He was fourth among our backs last year in overall attempts and (no surprises) had the fourth most yards at 89. The truth is we don't have a lot of data on him as fans.

If playing time was based off eye candy and magic then sure, Wilbon is unequivocally our best runner.

Actually you could easily counter this argument as you're assuming these coaches know how to property handle and coordinate a good/solid running game. I don't think they do but everyone is entitled to their own opinions on that.

So, one could easily argue Wilbon is the best back because the coaches don't know how to handle/coordinate a good solid running game? That's incredibly obtuse and unsubstantiated by physical evidence.

My argument is based on data supplemented by my opinion - that argument is based almost entirely on opinion.

Nebraska finished 9th in rushing in the B1G last year... Behind the likes of Maryland, Minnesota and Iowa just to name a few...

You're presenting a confusing argument - now you're talking about overall rushing attack.

You tried to contradict my argument by essentially saying Wilbon is the best back because our coaches don't know how to coordinate a solid running game. That's the 'obtuse' part I'm talking about. Wilbon has yet to prove in practice or on the field that he's the best back, but somehow he is the best back and we just don't know it because the coaches, in essence, suck?

The coaches saw a flash of light all of a sudden? The season ended less than 3 months ago. Davis needs to give this kid his carries

 

[Mavric]

we are about to become a throw it on 2nd and 3rd down, i can't see us running more than 40% of the time.

I support Mike Riley, but listening to what he says, about "protecting" the OL in terms of scheme: running screens, draws, and "being smart" about how they go about things...

To me, and maybe I am over-reacting/thinking, but yo your point, I think Nebraska is going to be become a soft, finesse, pass team--like under Callahan.

Like, I understand there are a lot of ways to win games, but if Mike Riley has any designs on actually winning the Big 10 or more, we're going to have to be physical, especially along the OL. And that means running the ball.

I guess "soft" is in the eye of the beholder. I think we'll tend to pass. But most of our running plays will be straight ahead which some will label as pounding it.

Of course, I'm far from convinced of the effectiveness of our running game. And I think we will throw a significant percentage of quick passes, which is probably what you're referring to.

I'm just waiting for "those passes are really part of the running game" to become an anthem.

I can see that too, but I hope and pray it doesn't. Does anyone in the media even ask OCDL about it (so much straight ahead run plays and not much variety)? And why won't we see more plays in space for the backs for the running game? Because that's how most big plays happen. And it's not like the defenders in the box are worried about play action. I mean, every opponent knows which direction we run. Right at them. And it's not pounding it or power football. It's just me shaking my head and doing this:

They did ask Langs about the choice of running plays and he said that we're an Inside Zone team. So that pretty much explains that part.

And I definitely agree with your post. Most of our "struggles" in the running game are because we rarely give our backs a chance to make plays in space. When you run into the line 80% of the time, there just isn't going to be a lot of room there.

 

[Enhance]

Someone always has to be that douche and bring up irrelevant stats. I mean hell we have the stays after 1 game so I guess we just shouldn't play the rest. You can't even argue that if Wilbon isn't the best back we have as a runner. Sure he has stuff he can work on but he's definitely our best runner. And the only way he's going to be a complete back is reps.

Actually, you can pretty easily argue Wilbon isn't the best runner we have. He was fourth among our backs last year in overall attempts and (no surprises) had the fourth most yards at 89. The truth is we don't have a lot of data on him as fans.

If playing time was based off eye candy and magic then sure, Wilbon is unequivocally our best runner.

Actually you could easily counter this argument as you're assuming these coaches know how to property handle and coordinate a good/solid running game. I don't think they do but everyone is entitled to their own opinions on that.

So, one could easily argue Wilbon is the best back because the coaches don't know how to handle/coordinate a good solid running game? That's incredibly obtuse and unsubstantiated by physical evidence.

My argument is based on data supplemented by my opinion - that argument is based almost entirely on opinion.

Nebraska finished 9th in rushing in the B1G last year... Behind the likes of Maryland, Minnesota and Iowa just to name a few...

You're presenting a confusing argument - now you're talking about overall rushing attack.

You tried to contradict my argument by essentially saying Wilbon is the best back because our coaches don't know how to coordinate a solid running game. That's the 'obtuse' part I'm talking about. Wilbon has yet to prove in practice or on the field that he's the best back, but somehow he is the best back and we just don't know it because the coaches, in essence, suck?

The coaches saw a flash of light all of a sudden? The season ended less than 3 months ago. Davis needs to give this kid his carries

If he earns them then he will, and if he ends up being our best back, that's fantastic for him.

 

[Apathy]

Davis telling me things I already knew. Wilbon should have already been receiving more carries.

I know. I remember during the BYU game that he was the best RB on the field that day and I wasn't the only one who felt that as so many others in my section thought so too.
Then after that game it's like Wilbon fell off the face of the earth

The myth of the Wilbon/BYU game continues to grow
6 carries for 14 yards (long of 7 yards)

2 receptions for 28 yards (long of 14 yards)

Yikes....
Like someone else said they believe some of his bigger runs where call back due to penalties but I still hold firm that myself and several others in the section I sit at left that game impressed with Wilbon.....and that sick feelin of seeing a Hail Mary go the other way

 

[Red Five]

Davis telling me things I already knew. Wilbon should have already been receiving more carries.

I know. I remember during the BYU game that he was the best RB on the field that day and I wasn't the only one who felt that as so many others in my section thought so too.
Then after that game it's like Wilbon fell off the face of the earth

The myth of the Wilbon/BYU game continues to grow
6 carries for 14 yards (long of 7 yards)

2 receptions for 28 yards (long of 14 yards)

Yikes....
Like someone else said they believe some of his bigger runs where call back due to penalties but I still hold firm that myself and several others in the section I sit at left that game impressed with Wilbon.....and that sick feelin of seeing a Hail Mary go the other way

Wilbon had an 11 yard reception called back due to a illegal formation penalty. He had no rushes called back due to penalty.

http://huskermax.com/games/2015/files/01byu_gamestats15.pdf

 

[suh_fan93]

Someone always has to be that douche and bring up irrelevant stats. I mean hell we have the stays after 1 game so I guess we just shouldn't play the rest. You can't even argue that if Wilbon isn't the best back we have as a runner. Sure he has stuff he can work on but he's definitely our best runner. And the only way he's going to be a complete back is reps.

Actually, you can pretty easily argue Wilbon isn't the best runner we have. He was fourth among our backs last year in overall attempts and (no surprises) had the fourth most yards at 89. The truth is we don't have a lot of data on him as fans.

If playing time was based off eye candy and magic then sure, Wilbon is unequivocally our best runner.

Actually you could easily counter this argument as you're assuming these coaches know how to property handle and coordinate a good/solid running game. I don't think they do but everyone is entitled to their own opinions on that.

So, one could easily argue Wilbon is the best back because the coaches don't know how to handle/coordinate a good solid running game? That's incredibly obtuse and unsubstantiated by physical evidence.

My argument is based on data supplemented by my opinion - that argument is based almost entirely on opinion.

Nebraska finished 9th in rushing in the B1G last year... Behind the likes of Maryland, Minnesota and Iowa just to name a few...

You're presenting a confusing argument - now you're talking about overall rushing attack.

You tried to contradict my argument by essentially saying Wilbon is the best back because our coaches don't know how to coordinate a solid running game. That's the 'obtuse' part I'm talking about. Wilbon has yet to prove in practice or on the field that he's the best back, but somehow he is the best back and we just don't know it because the coaches, in essence, suck?

Never said that....

 

[84HuskerLaw]

We have seen very little by comparison of Wilbon but he does have the quickness and elusive capability that is very desirable for ANY RB but don't short sell Bryant and Ozigbo. Both are more elusive than, I think, many realize. Ozigbo has shown exceptional power and that is very important when running inside as everybody seems to agree. Bryant might be the more 'all around' RB of the trio with good speed, decent power, etc.

It seems unlikely that any of the three will become the clear cut number one (bulk of the carries) RB and it will become a situational and 'match up' and game by game deal. The O line play, injuries, opponent's relative strengths and apparent weaknesses, game plans, etc. may well indicate one or another should get the work. For example, if the coaches feel we will be able to win the battle in the trenches and the power run game should be successful, I would expect Ozigbo would get the nod. But, against teams with an apparent strong defensive front and tough to run on, we will emphasize the passing and pass protection and outside swing passes to the RBs. That would likely favor Bryant/Wilbon.

I would also tend to think that Wilbon would have great potential as a punt and kick returner as well. If he has good hands, he ought to be able to do returns as well. While we have others with apparent kick return skills, it seems Wilbon is a fine athlete that we should be using to help the team. I always am disappointed to see great athletes with obvious football skills sitting on the sidelines because the circumstances, etc just don't quite fit to get them on the field. If a player has speed, quickness, etc, then he needs to be used somehow and some way. Many have commented that Nebraska in recent years has lacked 'talent' to compete with the better opponents. While this is certainly true, in my view, we can also say that we have failed to put our best on the field and or failed to utilize their best skills wisely.

I certainly believe the current and past coaches (mostly) are and were well aware of their players' abilities, but for any number of reasons (good or not so good) did not take advantage thereof. We can't afford to waste our limited talent or let it sit idly by while we struggle to win games Nebraska should not struggle to win.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

we are about to become a throw it on 2nd and 3rd down, i can't see us running more than 40% of the time.

I support Mike Riley, but listening to what he says, about "protecting" the OL in terms of scheme: running screens, draws, and "being smart" about how they go about things...

To me, and maybe I am over-reacting/thinking, but yo your point, I think Nebraska is going to be become a soft, finesse, pass team--like under Callahan.

Like, I understand there are a lot of ways to win games, but if Mike Riley has any designs on actually winning the Big 10 or more, we're going to have to be physical, especially along the OL. And that means running the ball.

I guess "soft" is in the eye of the beholder. I think we'll tend to pass. But most of our running plays will be straight ahead which some will label as pounding it.

Of course, I'm far from convinced of the effectiveness of our running game. And I think we will throw a significant percentage of quick passes, which is probably what you're referring to.

I'm just waiting for "those passes are really part of the running game" to become an anthem.

I don't know if it's an anthem, but it's definitely a thing in college football right now. Quick bubble screens to both sides of the field. Either you'll get your RB the ball in more open space, or loosen up the defense for the between-the-tackles running game. Teams with strong running games do it, and I don't think they consider it soft or finesse. Just part of football. If a coach talks about protecting his OL with a scheme, it probably means not asking them to sustain pass protection for a lot of deep routes.

I'm not crazy about bubble screens myself because those long sideways passes always look like a Pick 6 waiting to happen.

I think the four teams that made last year's playoffs all threw the ball around 30 times a game, including 2nd and 3rd downs if that seemed like a good idea. They ran the ball even more, like most successful teams. Nebraska trusted its running game to close out a lot of those games on the way to a 7-0 record. We didn't necessarily abandon the run after that. Better and smarter teams schemed to stop the run first and make Tommy Armstrong win with his arm.

If we have a more accurate quarterback, it's entirely possible the running game will benefit, too.

We'll see.

 

[Enhance]

Never said that....

Well...

Actually, you can pretty easily argue Wilbon isn't the best runner we have.

Actually you could easily counter this argument as you're assuming these coaches know how to property handle and coordinate a good/solid running game.

You kind of did, whether or not that was your intention, it could easily be interpreted that way.

 

[suh_fan93]

Never said that....

Well...

Actually, you can pretty easily argue Wilbon isn't the best runner we have.

Actually you could easily counter this argument as you're assuming these coaches know how to property handle and coordinate a good/solid running game.

You kind of did, whether or not that was your intention, it could easily be interpreted that way.

Not sure what to say here...