bshirt
Banned
I think that even in the SC game, it was clear that our offense was more than capable of keeping the defense on their heels (and this is the 4th ranked defense in the country). We moved the ball basically at will during the first half, but two turnovers in SC territory and a botched field goal in the second half and we're down about 13-17 points we should have had.I think this is a question worth chewing on:
Why, in a game in which we were blown out, are we only able to attempt 16 passes?
Stagnant is a good way of describing the offense. Despite the wealth of gamebreaking playmakers and a really fast runner at QB, we can't sustain. We can't take advantage of a defense on any given play. Instead, we are counting on those token opportunities during a game when we'll be able to catch them sleeping and get a long run or a long pass from Taylor. The rest of the time, we rely on Rex heroically running into defenses loaded up to stop him.
Sure, we produce some cool highlights like Taylor's big run or two towards the end of the game. But we need to be better at keeping defenses constantly on their heels. Taylor will need to really step up his passing. It has to be more than a changeup, the use of which we limit severely so as not to allow for mistakes.
In the second half, I think our offense was just as capable of moving the ball, but they have to stay on schedule. Nobody can take advantage of a defense on any given play, unless that defense is subpar (and SC's is not). You can't commit penalties to put yourself in 3rd and long situations every single drive, and with SC's DE's, you can't put yourself in situations where you HAVE to pass. We could have had Andrew Luck in the pocket in the second half, I simply think we hurt ourselves in way too many different ways to be at all successful.
In other words, our inability to pass didn't make us one-dimensional. It was our inability to run a play without shooting ourselves in the foot which put us behind schedule and made us one dimensional by putting us in situations where we have no choice but to pass.
Here's what I got, using ESPN and cfbstats.com:You really have to look at Taylor's numbers past the first few games. In the final nine games of the year beginning with the start of conference play, Taylor had 125 carries for 453 yards. Heck, after his first three games he really tailed it off, 137 carries for 490 yards over the final ten games. Taylor had one run over 20 yards (it came vs South Carolina) in this stretch.Taylor finished the season with 837 yards rushing, averaging 4.9 ypc, which was slightly more efficient than Rex Burkhead's 4.8 ypc. What exactly are you seeing in his statistics that merits questioning his production?
That is not good mileage out of a guy whose biggest asset is his homerun threat on the ground.
First 4 games (non conference), 63 carries for 421 yards. 6.68 ypc
Last 10 games (conference/bowl), 125 carries for 453 yards. 3.6 ypc
Now, to compare that to Rex Burkhead...
First 4 games (non conference) 63 carries for 420 yards. 6.67 ypc
Last 10 games (conference/bowl), 221 carries for 937 yards. 4.2 ypc
Now, it's also important to remember that Taylor's rush numbers are hurt by sacks. It looks like Nebraska gave up 21 sacks this year, for 99 yards.
First 4 games (non conference) there were 5 sacks for 21 yards. That would take Taylor's rushing total to 58 carries for 442 yards. 7.6 ypc
Last 10 games (conference /bowl) there were 16 sacks for 78 yards. That would take Taylor's rushing total to 109 carries for 531 yards. 4.9 ypc
So... When you take sacks out of the equation (which I prefer to do, since I believe sacks are an indictment of the passing game, not the running game), Taylor had a more efficient year running the football than Rex Burkhead did, both in conference play/bowl game and non-conference play.
Excellent post and well said sir.