Newby vs. Ozigbo - who should start & who should see the most carries
- Thread starter Enhance
- Start date
Enhance
Administrator
I don't think we're disagreeing with you, Mav.... But, keep a couple things in mind.
First, Nebraska was having a lot of success between the tackles rushing on first down. Gains of 8, 5, 5, 6, 4 and 4. And, if my math is correct, 11/19 (~58 percent) of the rushing plays listed here gained four or more yards. All 11 were up the middle. Though I agree that creativity seemed to be lacking, the team was having a lot of success. All this talk of middle blitzing and Wyoming stuffing the run doesn't really tell the whole story, either. Nebraska was running well up the middle to a degree.
Naturally, the overall YPC was lacking. But, part of this is credit to Wyoming playing well in the trenches. I also think this is where "creativity," or lack there of, shows itself - NU barely ran on 2nd down against Wyoming with Ozigbo/Newby (a theme the last two weeks) and the results when they did were mixed.
The second point I'd like to really hit home is that, in my opinion, our offensive line isn't very good. Average to above average. The people who know way more about football than myself have been saying as much the last couple of weeks, and the left side of the line is struggling on running plays based on the data above. Rush over left tackle for 3 yards, rush over left end for loss of 2, rush over left end for loss of 2, rush over left tackle for 2 yards. Furthermore, several people have commented that Knevel is struggling on the right side, which may explain why very few rushing plays tend to go outside to the right.
Just some things to consider.
Last edited by a moderator:
marko polo
New member
Knevel is very, very slow of foot and does not play with a lot of fire. I watched him both games very sub par.
husker98
New member
After re watching Saturdays game I feel a little more strongly about the points I and others made above.
When we throw, and we will early on in the game to build a lead, Newby is our guy. The way he catches and runs with the ball is smooth, I don't think we have anyone on the team as good as him on the screen play except maybe DPE.
But when its time to burn the clock and win the time of possession with power football its Ozigbo all day. Zig show some promise and speed on the screen play and some nice work on some cut backs, but for the most part it was just pound the rock right up the gut which he does better than anyone right now.
This staff said it wants a feature back, but I really think a two back system in their offense like this is more than workable if they keep recruiting like they have been.
And to comment on Mav's post, the run game does look very vanilla to me, as did the pass game even. I really get the impression we are keeping our cards close to our vest for the Oregon game this weekend.
I may be wrong, but I get the feeling Riley, Banker, and Langs are going to pull out a lot of wrinkles and special schemes to throw at this ducks team that tormented them at OSU for so long.
When we throw, and we will early on in the game to build a lead, Newby is our guy. The way he catches and runs with the ball is smooth, I don't think we have anyone on the team as good as him on the screen play except maybe DPE.
But when its time to burn the clock and win the time of possession with power football its Ozigbo all day. Zig show some promise and speed on the screen play and some nice work on some cut backs, but for the most part it was just pound the rock right up the gut which he does better than anyone right now.
This staff said it wants a feature back, but I really think a two back system in their offense like this is more than workable if they keep recruiting like they have been.
And to comment on Mav's post, the run game does look very vanilla to me, as did the pass game even. I really get the impression we are keeping our cards close to our vest for the Oregon game this weekend.
I may be wrong, but I get the feeling Riley, Banker, and Langs are going to pull out a lot of wrinkles and special schemes to throw at this ducks team that tormented them at OSU for so long.
BigRedBuster
Active member
Unless I messed up on figuring this. I went back through the play by play on Huskermax and found the following on second down:
Week 1 = 17 runs 4 passes
Week 2 = 7 runs 7 passes
Thats 24 runs and 11 passes. I'm not sure where you are getting that we barely ran it on 2nd down.
Mavric
Yoda
Guy was talking about misreading the playcalling and above you said they did try to run outside. Yes, technically they did try. But I don't think four carries per game is trying all that hard.
Perhaps it's picking nits but I don't think we were having "a lot" of success running between the tackles. We averaged a little over 4 yards per carry up the middle. That would be about #75 in the country this year on a ypc basis. And that was against a team that we outweighed by almost 50 pounds per man on the line. Like I've said, it's not so much that we were that terrible in this particular game. But I don't think that type of play-calling translates well to winning games against decent opponents.
It's pretty short-sighted to only look at that list and say the left side of the line is struggling. I should have posted it but someone tweeted a gif of Gates driving his guy 15+ yards downfield and out of the screen on one play. The play didn't make a lot of yards but he did his job better than anyone could have expected. I'm not saying the line is playing great but when you run pretty vanilla stuff that the defense can tee of on, you make it pretty hard on yourself.
4 yards per play up the middle is pretty good - it is a low risk run that should go for negative yards almost never. Seems to me that 3rd and 2 - would turn into 1st and 10. Comparing our runs up the middle to team totals (which include all runs) would make the #75 rankings a situation of not comparing apples to apples.
Enhance
Administrator
As this thread is specifically about Newby/Ozigbo, I only took their stats into account in regards to that post. I should've clarified that - my apologies.
As such, the results are 9 runs on 2nd down against Fresno St. and only 4 runs on 2nd down vs Wyoming combined.
Particularly against Wyoming, running on 2nd down with their two best backs was minimal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance
Administrator
In regards to bolded part 1, "a lot" is subjective - sure. To me, running for 4 or more yards between the tackles is a good number even if it's against a defensive line you should be able to out-mustcle. Furthermore, correct me if I'm mistaken, but your comparison to the YPC nationally seems flawed. You're significantly shortening the sample size (using only runs between the tackles) and then comparing it to the national YPC average. That's not a very fair analysis and my assumption would be most teams look bad against the national YPC average if you only compare their runs between the tackles.
I get what you're trying to say, regardless. I think I just few it all a little differently.
As far as bolded part 2, the numbers show the left side of the line struggled in one game with the top running backs on the field. I admit it is one game and I won't make a sweeping generalizations about it. I will, however, stand by my opinion that this offensive line is average to above average and I don't think there's any evidence to suggest otherwise at this point in the season. Perhaps that will change.
Guy Chamberlin
Active member
I know the thread is about the two RBs, but we also incorporated Tommy Armstrong, Cethan Carter, Brandon Rieley and DPE into the running game, almost exclusively involving misdirection and popping it outside. That adds another dozen attempts.
It's kind of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Against Fresno State we pounded it up the middle for a dependable four to six yards of wear-em-down, control the line offense that we supposedly covet. And iirc the celebration here was pretty muted, because we knew we would have to pass more effectively to beat better opponents. Had we backed off on pounding the middle against Wyoming, that would likely have been a topic of criticism around here. As mentioned, we tried to soften the middle with called rushing plays to Tommy on the outside, and hand it to a receiver a few times a game to pay off the constant misdirection. And it looked to me we replaced a few of those outside runs with fairly well executed bubble screens to both Newby and Ozigbo.
Or to look at it another way, if you had a running back who was getting 138 yards on 43 carries, and another running back who was getting 412 yards on 35 carries, who would you go with?
The passing game was working pretty well Saturday. It's actually not a slight to the running game, which was workmanlike and productive itself.
Like I said, the best teams in college football shift the balance as needed.
lo country
Mods
Against the Ducks we see a 2 back set. Show something new. Confuse Hoke as there is now no back to "key" on. Just my thoughts.
Mavric
Yoda
I realize that isn't really an apples to apples comparison. But when that is most of what we do, it isn't as far off as it may seem. My main point was to show that I don't think that's really having a lot of success. Yes, it isn't bad for running up the middle. But then people look at us only averaging 3.2 ypc and say we struggle to run the ball. Most of why we "struggle" is because we don't give ourselves very many chances for big running plays because the vast majority of our runs are right up the middle. We barley averaged 4 ypc against a defensive line that was completely overmatched. Against decent lines, it'll be 2 ypc (like it was against Northwestern last year) and people will say "we tried to run the ball but couldn't" which - I maintain - is most due to the types of run plays we are calling as opposed to our actual ability to run the ball if we had a more varied rushing attack.
Teams have many different players. Running does wear down the front 7, however passing has a similar effect on the back 7