So You're Telling Me...

[cm husker]

There is no "sweet spot" for passing the ball. It's about the effectiveness of the passes you do throw. That's why TO had a highly effective passing game even though he often threw it around 15 times a game. "Balance" is overrated, and I hope Riley is realizing that and coaching up Langs accordingly.

I generally agree with everything here but what the bolded implies. Armstrong won the game (leading an offense to 37 points while posting 250+ yards in total offense is much better than just avoiding a loss). This just makes me wonder why that wasn't the game plan for games like Purdue and Illinois, which should have been walk off wins.

The plan versus UCLA was fantastic for Tommy because it didn't give him much of a chance to put the win in jeopardy. The run/pass ratio was going to be heavy and when you've got a QB with legs like Armstrong, you make a team that can't cover everyone pay, especially once they cheat up just in case he takes off.

 

[cm husker]

What's interesting to me is that some are saying "well, early in the season, like against Miami, the team was down in the first half and had to throw its way back into the game."

But that's such an shallow way of thinking, and the UCLA game proves it.

Using Miami as a counter-case study, NU started the Miami game with 10 called pass plays against only 5 called running plays (armstrong did scramble twice for a total of 6 yards during that stretch), despite having much more success on called running plays. That passing to rushing ratio really put NU in some tough positions and led to the 17-0 and eventual 30-10 deficits.

By contrast, against UCLA, NU ran it 14 times (47 yards) against in the first quarter (3 passes for 37 yards), and 15 times for 97 yards in the second quarter against only about 6 pass attempts.

I think, thankfully, NU came in thinking they would establish the run and because they didn't fall behind by 2 scores until the second quarter, Langs (and Riley?) didn't go into "panic and abandon" mode like they did against Miami, a game where NU was actually having more success on the ground in the first quarter than against UCLA (8 carries for 37 yards versus 14 carries for 47 yards). Because, by staying with it, they wore UCLA down and went for almost 100 yards only 15 carries in the second quarter.

The other telling stat is time of possession. Against Miami, the Hurricanes possessed it about the same amount of time as NU. Against UCLA, NU possessed it almost twice as long in the first half along (and a whopping 12 minutes to 3 minutes in the third quarter that turned the game around, while running it 19 times and throwing it only 6 times).

I look at this and see clear evidence that NU clearly shifted gears and approaches for this bowl game. I'm really hopeful that they will continue to move in that direction next season. I just have a little doubt because I think both Langs and Riley are throw first guys and won't want to "grind out" wins like they did against UCLA.

 

[Redux]

We treated the tun game as a novelty. More of a necessity to ensure the defenses wouldn't simply defend the pass exclusively every drive. It cost us at least 3 games which is severely unfortunate considering we obviously HAD the players to run an effective ground game.

UCLA has a bad rush defense, that much was clear. But with Ozigbo and Cross and Jannovich we could have been beating the hell out of defensive lines all season yet we were passing on 1st and 2nd down in the 2st quarter for no apparent reason other than we could. Also, I would like to see more stretch to the wide side of the field instead of smash up the middle.

 

[Scratchtown]

He's saying that they should have used the same game plan all season.

In theory that would make a lot of fans happy! Myself included.

However, you also run the risk of being too predictable. Some of those points last night were because ucla didn't game plan for us to play that style.

To predictable? Didn't hurt Iowa Mich St to much. There are a ton of other teams that are pretty predictable and had a lot of success

Exactly. Some of the posters on here seem to think that if you run the ball 70% of the time you are predictable. That's not predictable, I feel sorry for the fool who only uses that stat as justification for tendencies.

You can run the ball every down if you wanted to and still not be very predictable in the way you choose to run by taking advantage of having a diversified run game.

Which is easier to defend?

Team A: 50% run, 2 different plays

Team B: 85% run, 10 different plays

Answer? Team A.

The point of this is that if you run Traps/Whams, Counters, Powers/Blasts, Toss, Options, Iso/Slam, etc...you won't be all that predictable. You get predictable when you only run up the center's arse.

 

[skersfan]

cm I agree with your post.

But I also think they did make an effort to use Tommy's ability, but were trying to use the other weapons they had. It was a roll the dice deal with Tommy, they saw it in practice as we saw it on the field.

Maybe it just took the Iowa game for him to realize he did not have to win the game by himself. I saw a battler in Tommy, but not really a team player. He took too much responsibility on himself, and made decisions that not only made him look like a star or a goat, but the staff as well.

I am excited for Tommy. I have never been a great fan of the kid. He showed in the UCLA game if he plays within himself he can be productive and good for Nebraska.

We have 8.5 months for him to learn every approach to that, and I would really like to see this board focus more on what this staff and team can do to improve.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Nebraska executed a wide variety of rushing plays this season. Many of them were successful.

 

[Branno]

Boleaver/Boliever is fast on its way to becoming a bannable strawman.

Please, oh please make this happen.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Boleaver/Boliever is fast on its way to becoming a bannable strawman.

Please, oh please make this happen.

Pretty please....with sugar on it.

 

[Enhance]

We treated the tun game as a novelty. More of a necessity to ensure the defenses wouldn't simply defend the pass exclusively every drive. It cost us at least 3 games which is severely unfortunate considering we obviously HAD the players to run an effective ground game.

UCLA has a bad rush defense, that much was clear. But with Ozigbo and Cross and Jannovich we could have been beating the hell out of defensive lines all season yet we were passing on 1st and 2nd down in the 2st quarter for no apparent reason other than we could. Also, I would like to see more stretch to the wide side of the field instead of smash up the middle.

Someone quoted Langsdorf in another thread following the game and he basically said it would've been nice if they could've run like that all season but some games they couldn't.

I challenge this mindset because saying something like that suggests they exhausted all their efforts to try and run the ball and nothing worked well enough. This can be proven false, however, by the fact that there were several games Janovich had no carries and Ozigbo had only a couple or none at all.

Then there was the 3rd and 1 play inside UCLA's 5-yard line in the 3rd quarter. They relied heavily on the rush attack this drive and the Bruins had been unable to stop yet, yet they called a shotgun pass play.

Langsdorf deserves credit for sticking to the run and calling a pretty darn good game, but there are still moments where it's clear to me he still doesn't quite trust or have a lot of faith in the run game.

 

[eightlaces]

The idea that Riley and Langs wanted to do things "their way" a.k.a. The Callahan Effect isn't true at all. Coming into the job, he was asked about being pass-happy and he said no, I want people on the ground with the ball. He said the same thing following the win versus UCLA, so at this point I'm curious if people are just hearing what they want to.

What you say starts to ring hollow if it isn't matching up to what you do.

Hard to do it when you don't have the personnel who can execute it properly. We're talking about the understanding of principles and familiarity. The team's confidence and knowledge of what they were looking to do versus Miami is obviously different than it was versus UCLA. That's a ten game difference.

 

[eightlaces]

There is no "sweet spot" for passing the ball. It's about the effectiveness of the passes you do throw. That's why TO had a highly effective passing game even though he often threw it around 15 times a game. "Balance" is overrated, and I hope Riley is realizing that and coaching up Langs accordingly.

I generally agree with everything here but what the bolded implies. Armstrong won the game (leading an offense to 37 points while posting 250+ yards in total offense is much better than just avoiding a loss). This just makes me wonder why that wasn't the game plan for games like Purdue and Illinois, which should have been walk off wins.

When it comes to Riley's offense, yes there is. However, you are correct when it comes to the effectiveness of the pass. You'll see passes that Tommy failed to make again only if he can't make them, someone else will.

Armstrong won the game because he was put in position not to do much damage and stay on the ground where he was more of a threat to UCLA than putting the ball in the air where he was actually a threat to his own team's success. Also, Purdue? Ryker Fyfe.

 

[Mavric]

The idea that Riley and Langs wanted to do things "their way" a.k.a. The Callahan Effect isn't true at all. Coming into the job, he was asked about being pass-happy and he said no, I want people on the ground with the ball. He said the same thing following the win versus UCLA, so at this point I'm curious if people are just hearing what they want to.

What you say starts to ring hollow if it isn't matching up to what you do.

Hard to do it when you don't have the personnel who can execute it properly. We're talking about the understanding of principles and familiarity. The team's confidence and knowledge of what they were looking to do versus Miami is obviously different than it was versus UCLA. That's a ten game difference.

It's also hard to do it when you give the ball to our backs 18 times and call 45+ pass plays.

Newby averaged 5.9 yards per carry against Miami this year. Ameer averaged 6.5 yards per carry vs. Miami last year. 6.5 is better than 5.9 but not so much that one of those games resulted in 229 rushing yards while the other resulted in 82.

If the coaches are telling you can run it against certain teams but you can't run it against other teams, that's pretty much where that confidence is coming from.

 

[cm husker]

There is no "sweet spot" for passing the ball. It's about the effectiveness of the passes you do throw. That's why TO had a highly effective passing game even though he often threw it around 15 times a game. "Balance" is overrated, and I hope Riley is realizing that and coaching up Langs accordingly.

I generally agree with everything here but what the bolded implies. Armstrong won the game (leading an offense to 37 points while posting 250+ yards in total offense is much better than just avoiding a loss). This just makes me wonder why that wasn't the game plan for games like Purdue and Illinois, which should have been walk off wins.

When it comes to Riley's offense, yes there is. However, you are correct when it comes to the effectiveness of the pass. You'll see passes that Tommy failed to make again only if he can't make them, someone else will.

Armstrong won the game because he was put in position not to do much damage and stay on the ground where he was more of a threat to UCLA than putting the ball in the air where he was actually a threat to his own team's success. Also, Purdue? Ryker Fyfe.

Knock Fyfe, but then admit that having a pass heavy first half and a disastrous 70% passing 3rd quarter after trailing only 21-9 at half was all on the coaches and their awful game planning.

Riley's offense has been traditionally much more than 22 passes a game. I think in his own idea world, attempts would be between 35 and 40 a game. At least based on his history. M

 

[Elf]

We treated the tun game as a novelty. More of a necessity to ensure the defenses wouldn't simply defend the pass exclusively every drive. It cost us at least 3 games which is severely unfortunate considering we obviously HAD the players to run an effective ground game.

UCLA has a bad rush defense, that much was clear. But with Ozigbo and Cross and Jannovich we could have been beating the hell out of defensive lines all season yet we were passing on 1st and 2nd down in the 2st quarter for no apparent reason other than we could. Also, I would like to see more stretch to the wide side of the field instead of smash up the middle.

Someone quoted Langsdorf in another thread following the game and he basically said it would've been nice if they could've run like that all season but some games they couldn't.

I challenge this mindset because saying something like that suggests they exhausted all their efforts to try and run the ball and nothing worked well enough. This can be proven false, however, by the fact that there were several games Janovich had no carries and Ozigbo had only a couple or none at all.

Then there was the 3rd and 1 play inside UCLA's 5-yard line in the 3rd quarter. They relied heavily on the rush attack this drive and the Bruins had been unable to stop yet, yet they called a shotgun pass play.

Langsdorf deserves credit for sticking to the run and calling a pretty darn good game, but there are still moments where it's clear to me he still doesn't quite trust or have a lot of faith in the run game.

In all fairness we don't know the exact reasons for that. I could be remembering this all wrong but didn't someone ask one of the coaches about Ozigbo earlier this year, I forget the exact question but the answer was something to the effect of Ozigbo was the only one holding him back, grades or learning the offense maybe... Point is, there are likely valid reasons for the running back situation we saw this year and we may never know the full extent of those reasons. I would have volunteered to be the "fly on the wall" in the coaches offices and on the practice field but with my luck someone would have used a can of Raid on my a$$.

 

[Elf]

What's interesting to me is that some are saying "well, early in the season, like against Miami, the team was down in the first half and had to throw its way back into the game."

But that's such an shallow way of thinking, and the UCLA game proves it.

Using Miami as a counter-case study, NU started the Miami game with 10 called pass plays against only 5 called running plays (armstrong did scramble twice for a total of 6 yards during that stretch), despite having much more success on called running plays. That passing to rushing ratio really put NU in some tough positions and led to the 17-0 and eventual 30-10 deficits.

By contrast, against UCLA, NU ran it 14 times (47 yards) against in the first quarter (3 passes for 37 yards), and 15 times for 97 yards in the second quarter against only about 6 pass attempts.

I think, thankfully, NU came in thinking they would establish the run and because they didn't fall behind by 2 scores until the second quarter, Langs (and Riley?) didn't go into "panic and abandon" mode like they did against Miami, a game where NU was actually having more success on the ground in the first quarter than against UCLA (8 carries for 37 yards versus 14 carries for 47 yards). Because, by staying with it, they wore UCLA down and went for almost 100 yards only 15 carries in the second quarter.

The other telling stat is time of possession. Against Miami, the Hurricanes possessed it about the same amount of time as NU. Against UCLA, NU possessed it almost twice as long in the first half along (and a whopping 12 minutes to 3 minutes in the third quarter that turned the game around, while running it 19 times and throwing it only 6 times).

I look at this and see clear evidence that NU clearly shifted gears and approaches for this bowl game. I'm really hopeful that they will continue to move in that direction next season. I just have a little doubt because I think both Langs and Riley are throw first guys and won't want to "grind out" wins like they did against UCLA.

How big was Miami's defensive line compared to UCLA's?

I ask because I don't recall us manhandling the Hurricanes line like we did UCLA's. UCLA's line is undersized and that likely had a lot to do with our success.

We also played a hell of a lot better football at the end of the season than we did at the beginning.