Tangent Thread - Run the Damn Ball!!!

lo country said:
Our O is anemic in the red zone.  Fact. 
Click to expand...
Yes, NU's red zone scoring % of 77.4% was very bad (107th) in the country.  I haven't been able to find the red zone TD percentage yet, but a big reason for that poor ranking is FG misses in the red zone.  Looking at the stats, NU missed 5 FG's under 39 yards.  If NU made 3 of them, NU's red zone ranking jumps to 75th at 83.0%.  If NU makes all 5 of those short FG's, NU"s red zone ranking jumps to 38th at 86.8%.  Throw in the fact that NU might have gone for a couple more FG attempts if they had a reliable kicker, and the red zone ranking could have improved even more.  In 2021, the red zone scoring woes were a special teams issue, not necessarily an offensive issue.

Finally, I looked at the red zone scoring rankings for some other Big Ten teams.  They are:

Ohio State - 5th - 92.6%

Michigan - 25th - 89.6% (boosted by 19 FG's)

Purdue - 48th - 86.0% (boosted by 22 FG's)

Michigan State - 50th - 85.4%

Minnesota - 64th - 84.0%

Penn State - 83rd - 82.1%

Wisconsin - 89th - 80.8% - only 1 more red zone score than NU all season

Iowa - 121st - 72.7% - that's with a great FG kicker and they only scored 18 red zone TD's all season!!!

So, looking at the offenses and the rankings, I would say the Ohio State has the most explosive and diverse offense, and it was one of the best in the country.  Purdue's offense is very similar to NU's, but was able to have a much higher red zone scoring percentage by a great FG kicker.  Wisconsin and Iowa seem to have an offense that many NU fans want, but their red zone offense isn't significantly better and even worse than NU's.  Finally, as a whole, the Big Ten's red zone rankings kinda suck.  That is due to having some great defenses in the country, but also due to having some boring and unimaginative offenses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ColoradoHusk said:
Yes, NU's red zone scoring % of 77.4% was very bad (107th) in the country.  I haven't been able to find the red zone TD percentage yet, but a big reason for that poor ranking is FG misses in the red zone.  Looking at the stats, NU missed 5 FG's under 39 yards.  If NU made 3 of them, NU's red zone ranking jumps to 75th at 83.0%.  If NU makes all 5 of those short FG's, NU"s red zone ranking jumps to 38th at 86.8%.  Throw in the fact that NU might have gone for a couple more FG attempts if they had a reliable kicker, and the red zone ranking could have improved even more.  In 2021, the red zone scoring woes were a special teams issue, not necessarily an offensive issue.
Click to expand...
And I don't disagree with this. ST and OL play were/are much larger issues IMO.  The inability to get the shorts yards on running plays is also an issue.  But our team (on the offensive/ST) side is like a circular firing squad.  There is sadly too much blame to go around to be a winning program with our current issues.  ST-punting, returns (KO/punt), coverage etc..

QB-INT's, fumbles, OL blocking, penalties, RB-miscues, lack of that "lean forward" runner (goes back to the 1 foot stat), Coaching on the O side....Just a lot of issues that will hopefully be corrected with a new staff.  I do not see how we could do worse in 2022.

 
I wanted Frost fired after the 2021 season because I think he has shown to be a pretty bad overall coach.  However, the offensive scheme really isn't the issue for NU losing and being 3-9 in 2021.  For everyone lauding Chinander and his D, they weren't able to generate turnovers and points of their own.  Special teams was an unmitigated disaster (which I do blame Frost).  There is a lot of hidden yardage and points which can be generated by defense and special teams, which NU failed miserably at in 2021.  NU was outscored by non-offensive points (special teams, opponent defensive scoring, etc.) 42-0 in 2021.  Of those 42 points given up, only 16 points were the fault of the offense (2 TD's given up and 1 safety).  So, people can blame the offense and the scheme all they want, but they need to take a deeper look into why NU is losing these games. 

 
lo country said:
The inability to get the shorts yards on running plays is also an issue.
Click to expand...
This is another item where fans' perceptions can alter the facts of the situation.  I wasn't able to quickly find stats on 3rd or 4th and short conversions, but based on 3rd down conversion % and looking at Big Ten West competition, NU was better than Wisconsin and Iowa in 2021, while the 2 best in the division were Minnesota and Purdue (2 totally different offenses).  When looking at 4th down conversions, NU (50%) was very similar to Wisconsin (55%) and Purdue (53%) while Minnesota (60%) and Iowa (33%) were much better and worse than Nebraks

 
ColoradoHusk said:
This is another item where fans' perceptions can alter the facts of the situation.  I wasn't able to quickly find stats on 3rd or 4th and short conversions, but based on 3rd down conversion % and looking at Big Ten West competition, NU was better than Wisconsin and Iowa in 2021, while the 2 best in the division were Minnesota and Purdue (2 totally different offenses).  When looking at 4th down conversions, NU (50%) was very similar to Wisconsin (55%) and Purdue (53%) while Minnesota (60%) and Iowa (33%) were much better and worse than Nebraks
Click to expand...
Fans tend to only remember the bad...

This is why I have said that AM will lead KSU to probably 10 wins next year with the same stats he has averaged at NU and Husker fans will think he is amazing all of a sudden.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
I wanted Frost fired after the 2021 season because I think he has shown to be a pretty bad overall coach.  However, the offensive scheme really isn't the issue for NU losing and being 3-9 in 2021.  For everyone lauding Chinander and his D, they weren't able to generate turnovers and points of their own.  Special teams was an unmitigated disaster (which I do blame Frost).  There is a lot of hidden yardage and points which can be generated by defense and special teams, which NU failed miserably at in 2021.  NU was outscored by non-offensive points (special teams, opponent defensive scoring, etc.) 42-0 in 2021.  Of those 42 points given up, only 16 points were the fault of the offense (2 TD's given up and 1 safety).  So, people can blame the offense and the scheme all they want, but they need to take a deeper look into why NU is losing these games. 
Click to expand...
These things are good points that most tend to agree with I think,  pass the dam ball or run the ball alike.  The discussion is more on what’s wrong with the offense alone.  
 

  ST effects field position and momentum’, etc.  All three phases interrelate certainly.   The offense needs to help the STs and defense and vice versa.  

Poor FG kicking IS a serious problem but expecting to make more than 75% of those kicks is probably unreasonable.  Adding 3 or 4 more FGs would have helped some but doesn’t equate to another 7-10 pts a game.  We need to finish more drives with TDs not FGs.  Finishing drives is mostly an offense issue.  In fact, reliance on short FGs ought not be the goal. 
 

Sustaining drives, first downs, time of possession and wearing down the opponent’s defense physically and mentally, and scoring TDs is the idea.   Stacking up 5 yard runs, play after play, down the field for scores breaks the will and frustrates and discouraged the opponent.  All the while, our STs and defense is resting and will have fewer snaps to face for the game.  This is where the run game has its edge over the pass game. Short passes away from the sidelines have similar benefit but are higher turnover / sack risks.  A diversified running attack strains a defense sideline to sideline. Fumbles happen too but RBs tend to be better able to secure the ball and are facing the defenders going into contact. QBs and WRs are often hit from behind or hit immediately follow the catch.  Harder to secure the ball.  And RBs are easier to find, especially in the middle of the country.  We have recruited a number of good RBs lately. Likewise for WRs but WRs have failed to earn their stars. RBs never get the chance, imo. 

 
84HuskerLaw said:
Poor FG kicking IS a serious problem but expecting to make more than 75% of those kicks is probably unreasonable.  Adding 3 or 4 more FGs would have helped some but doesn’t equate to another 7-10 pts a game.  We need to finish more drives with TDs not FGs.  Finishing drives is mostly an offense issue.  In fact, reliance on short FGs ought not be the goal. 
Click to expand...
1.  Half of Division 1 FBS teams made over 75% in FG's, and that's all FG's.  Expecting 80-90% of FG's under 40 yards (when in the red zone) isn't unreasonable.

2.  I agree that NU needs to finish drives with TD's, and I think NU did that comparably well in 2021 to winning teams in the Big Ten.  I didn't find the TD % stat readily available so I am doing this calculation for the top half of the Big Ten.   Nebraska - 66%, Ohio State - 67%, Michigan - 64%, Michigan State - 65%, Purdue 47%,  Penn State 51%, Wisconsin 54%, Iowa 41%, Minnesota - 60%.  So, by those measures, Nebraska had better red zone TD percentages than nearly every other Big Ten team, and much better than the 2 "Power Run Teams" in Wisconsin and Iowa.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
Fans tend to only remember the bad...

This is why I have said that AM will lead KSU to probably 10 wins next year with the same stats he has averaged at NU and Husker fans will think he is amazing all of a sudden.
Click to expand...
Correct!  Psychology shows that humans focus on negative.  You can give someone 7 compliments and 1 put down and the brain dwells on negative. AM will succeed, then the people who bashed AM  will bash SF for letting him walk.

 
84HuskerLaw said:
Short passes away from the sidelines have similar benefit but are higher turnover / sack risks.  A diversified running attack strains a defense sideline to sideline. Fumbles happen too but RBs tend to be better able to secure the ball and are facing the defenders going into contact. QBs and WRs are often hit from behind or hit immediately follow the catch.  Harder to secure the ball. 
Click to expand...
I couldn't find readily fumble stats by player, but this is another example of how your perception and opinions are  basing your arguments.  You would think that as a lawyer, you would want to have facts and data to back up your arguments.  So, here are some facts which I found.  NU lost 7 fumbles total in 2021.  Based on my memory, at least 3 were from the QB position (2 of them were on QB runs/options), so that leaves at most 4 fumbles outside the QB.  I don't remember any/many fumbles from the WR position, so I think your argument of those short, quick passes to the outside being more turnover-prone is false.  Now, I would agree that RB's running the ball more instead of relying on the QB run game would produce fewer fumbles, but the short passing game doesn't cause more fumbles/turnovers than a heavy run game.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
I couldn't find readily fumble stats by player, but this is another example of how your perception and opinions are  basing your arguments.  You would think that as a lawyer, you would want to have facts and data to back up your arguments.  So, here are some facts which I found.  NU lost 7 fumbles total in 2021.  Based on my memory, at least 3 were from the QB position (2 of them were on QB runs/options), so that leaves at most 4 fumbles outside the QB.  I don't remember any/many fumbles from the WR position, so I think your argument of those short, quick passes to the outside being more turnover-prone is false.  Now, I would agree that RB's running the ball more instead of relying on the QB run game would produce fewer fumbles, but the short passing game doesn't cause more fumbles/turnovers than a heavy run game.
Click to expand...
We had maybe 1 or 2 fumbles by RBs in ‘21 and. Y and large RBs have been relatively fumble free the past four years, despite the difficulty finding much running room.  There were some dropped balls we recovered above the 7.  Stats are hard to find for me, especially using my phone.  This site and or phones’ type “correct” features cause as many issues as they fix, too.  Going in and out of sites, etc just makes posting a royal pain in itself.  
This year we threw fewer balls to RBs and slot guys behind the LOS or short inside the hash type (more like run type action) so the yards per catch and yards per attempt went up.  They look impressive and are, in some respects.  These are the so called ‘chunk’ plays that many observers are so enamored with.  Not that they are undesired, but an offense can’t be successful at sustaining drives and holding possession and scoring in red zones being reliant on 8-20 yard pass plays. I’d rather see 4 4.5 yard runs than one 18 yard completion.  Even with a very mediocre run game, we managed to get 3-4 yards on most running plays by the RBs.

 The ideal TD drive would be a 11 play, 75 yard drive with about 9 runs for 50 yards and 2 passes for 25.  Time used - 4.5 minutes.   I get the impression that this would be an ugly, boring TD drive by the pass the ballers who want a 75 yard drive in 6 plays (2 runs for 8 yards, 4 passes for 67).  Time used 2.30.  
 

I realize beggars can’t be choosers and you take points anyway you can get them but the offense needs to be organized and schemed, however you align your players, to methodically sustain drives, earn first downs, etc.  Lots of yards and TDs and no defense, like the Purdue - Tenn game is ugly football imo and won’t lend itself to dominating consistency that enables Big Red to win 75% of its games, year in year out.  

 
@84HuskerLaw chunk plays are the best way to consistently move the ball down the field and score points. What you want isn't sustainable long-term. It's great to have one or two times a game, but it won't be good enough against the better teams on your schedule. Opposing defenses want to limit big plays and force teams into long possessions, because the offense will eventually make a mistake and be forced to kick (punt or FG attempt is a victory for the defense).

Let's look at the Nebraska-Wisconsin game of 2021. You would think that Wisconsin would be the team with long, sustained drives leading to points. However, Wisconsin scored 2 of it's offensive plays with long TD runs (chunk plays) and a kickoff return (chunk play). NU was the team which had nearly twice as many plays, 50 more yards, and good TD success rate in the red zone (4 out of 6 trips).  That was against one of the best scoring defenses in the country. So, tell me how the offensive scheme for NU was the reason for that loss?

 
admo said:
So at halftime when Georgia was winning 24-3, apparently Michigan just needed to run the ball and simply impose their will?

Maybe sneak in a play action pass? 
 

Simple plays.  Willpower.  Run the ball.  Trailing by 21.  Be dedicated. 

That's so stupid
Click to expand...
Michigan just didn't have it last night, for whatever reason. But it's Georgia. You're gonna have to play the best you ever have to beat a team like that. 

But thanks for bringing up Michigan. How did they beat Ohio State and Iowa to GET to the playoff? By running the HECK out of the ball. They finally ended the drought against the Buckeyes by simply being more physical, manhandling the OSU defensive line most of the game, and the play action game was huge because of it.

Remember those days? Don't tell me it can't happen again, because that simply isn't true. 

 
Jeremy said:
Michigan just didn't have it last night, for whatever reason. But it's Georgia. You're gonna have to play the best you ever have to beat a team like that. 

But thanks for bringing up Michigan. How did they beat Ohio State and Iowa to GET to the playoff? By running the HECK out of the ball. They finally ended the drought against the Buckeyes by simply being more physical, manhandling the OSU defensive line most of the game, and the play action game was huge because of it.

Remember those days? Don't tell me it can't happen again, because that simply isn't true. 
Click to expand...
In the Michigan-Iowa game, Michigan had a 32 runs and 28 pass attempts. That's 53% run and 47% pass, with 250 yards passing. That's while having a huge lead in the 2nd half and running the ball to grind the clock. Of course, that run-pass ratio doesn't jive with your bias, so you just assume that Michigan ran the ball to that victory.  In reviewing Michigan's toughest games this season,  other than the Ohio State game, they were able to get 200-250 yards plus passing the ball. I think the reason Michigan finally won the Big Ten (aside from beating Ohio State obviously) is that they didn't have the "bad loss or two" because they had a more diverse and balanced offense with a better passing game this season. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, I think most of us Husker fans and football followers are suggesting there's a huge gap between an Air Raid offense --- which almost no team runs -- and a Power Option offense -- which almost no team runs.

In the middle is where most teams win most football games, with an enjoyable mix of running and passing. Because that's how the game is designed.

I also don't see anyone anywhere suggesting that Nebraska doesn't need to run the ball more and better. 

One of the reasons we haven't been so great at recruiting hotshot passing QBs is that we still have a reputation for running a dual threat scheme, with dual threat high school players who were better runners than passers and wouldn't be allowed to play QB at most schools. A great running game is a passing QBs best friend, but at the moment Nebraska still expects the QB to get the bulk of its rushing yards. 

Yeah, it would be blast if we could ram the ball down the opponents throat, make them backpedal into submission, grind out drive after drive and stand over their exhausted bodies. Why don't more teams do that? 

 
Back
Top