Tangent Thread - Run the Damn Ball!!!

[Jeremy]

For 11 of the past 12 years, Nebraska has committed itself to dual threat quarterbacks who wouldn't be allowed to play quarterback at most P5 programs.

You are suggesting we stick with that approach because it's the best we can expect. 

Yes and no.

In the Flexbone model, there is way less pressure on the QB to be a dual-threat because he’s one of 4 in the backfield that the ball could be going to. It's a BIG difference from what we're doing now when nearly everything is dependent upon the QB and the myriad of decisions he has to make on any given play.

A Flexbone QB has to make quick decisions, but there are less of them, and they're easier. 

Since not as much is expected of the QB, the general trend is that backups can come in and be nearly as effective as the starter if needed.

A QB running the Flexbone is not even close to the same as what Frost has tried to do the last 4 years. 

 

[Mavric]

Our O is anemic in the red zone.  Fact.  

This is not a fact.  I've already showed you that our offense was actually pretty good.  It's our special teams that were bad.  But you refuse to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Moving the goal posts? You are cherry picking stats to show we are close to Bama like prowess.  Please.  We need a complete overhaul on offense.  In four years we have beat two B1G teams with a winning record (one might have been 6-6) and IIRC both of those were in 2018......So keep throwing out stats to show we are "close" to Bama"..

So our new moral victories are how specific stats match up to winning programs.  Man, how far we have fallen....

This is fun.  I didn't do any of those things.  You took what I said, exaggerated it to accuse me of saying that I thought we were close to Bama and then complain about the strawman you've created.  Good fun.

 

[J-MAGIC]

It's kind of funny that we only get to that 55% because were were so bad at passing (sacks and scrambles count as running plays even though they're just broken pass plays).  We had lots of sacks and scrambles. 

In terms of playcalling, Frost's offense is, without question, a pass heavy offense.  That's easy enough to see if you watch the games.  I don't know how one would define "pass happy", especially since it's such a sad sight.

One thing that Frost and Whipple's offense have in common is they're very lackluster offenses until you have a QB that's playing at a very high level (Milton for Frost, Pickett for Whipple).   The next time Nebraska has a QB passing the ball at that level will be the first time Nebraska has a QB passing the ball at that level.  I don't see why it's so difficult to comprehend that going back to being a run heavy smashmouth team could benefit Nebraska. 

Excluding the Iowa and Wisconsin games (because I haven't charted them) and the Fordham game (because FCS games don't count):

• We called a designed run on 49.125 percent of our plays (this doesn't include any sacks, scrambles, and kneels -- just straight-up designed runs. It also doesn't include any RPO calls so the percentage of plays where we're actually running a run play is a bit higher.)
  
• Our opponents called designed runs on 44.2 percent of their plays (same methodology), and the only two teams we played that ran the ball in any game higher than our season average were Michigan (63% run) and Minnesota (62% run).
  

So we already run the ball more than almost anyone in the Big Ten. In a 2021 world where Alabama and Ohio State have gravitated away from run-heavy schemes to offenses where they throw 40 times a game, a 50-50 run-pass balance is probably about as run-heavy as is advisable in the Power 5 if you actually want to try to be good and not just drag games into the mud and hope you get lucky on defense/special teams (the Iowa/Wisconsin model). I think you are deeply incorrect!

 

[lo country]

This is not a fact.  I've already showed you that our offense was actually pretty good.  It's our special teams that were bad.  But you refuse to acknowledge that because it doesn't fit your narrative.

This is fun.  I didn't do any of those things.  You took what I said, exaggerated it to accuse me of saying that I thought we were close to Bama and then complain about the strawman you've created.  Good fun.

Cherry pick facts?  ST is part of red zone.  Like the offense is part of it.  We were 107th....Pretty factual...You are the one that threw put the Bama stats.....What did you mean exactly.  And the self righteous crap gets old.  And our pretty good O has yet to beat a team with a pulse in 4 years.  Or win a one score game.  Or go bowling......Good fun indeed.  

 

[huskerfan333157]

That was the advent of zone-read wasn’t it?

I don’t remember White going under center much.

Pretty much.  They ran a lot of option from shotgun, they ran the ball 76% of the time.

 

[huskerfan333157]

Who cares what everyone else is doing? Are we going to win doing the same thing as everyone else? 

Did Osborne care about the offense that Florida State was running?

The coaches in Lincoln went 3-9. That record speaks for itself. 

Because other coaches would be running the ball more than 70% of the time it was actually successful. You can NOT be successful running the ball more than 70% of the time.

 

[Hilltop]

I don't think there are any absolutes.  That said, the top 25 data over the last 5+ years suggests an elite pass offense, complimented by a solid running offense, is necessary to compete at the highest levels.  In other words, you have to be fairly balanced, and be really excellent at throwing the ball.  

What Frost is trying to accomplish is a winning formula if he can get all the pieces performing.

 

[The Dude]

We called a designed run on 49.125 percent of our plays

I'm less skeptical of that number than I am the 55-60% people have been trying push.

 

[The Dude]

In a 2021 world where Alabama and Ohio State have gravitated away from run-heavy schemes to offenses where they throw 40 times a game, a 50-50 run-pass balance is probably about as run-heavy as is advisable in the Power 5 if you actually want to try to be good

If we can get the same quality of athletes as Ohio State and Alabama, then yes.  Otherwise I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Jeremy]

Because other coaches would be running the ball more than 70% of the time it was actually successful. You can NOT be successful running the ball more than 70% of the time.

It would appear that you can NOT be successful doing what we're doing. Once again, 3-9. (After a 3-5 season the year prior.)

Yeah, I know, we 'fired the coaches responsible for the shortcomings.' Sure. I seriously doubt that passing MORE is the answer, but with Whipple, the great offensive mastermind, maybe we'll be Pitt 2.0.

How do you explain the success that that the service academies have had in recent years? Winning WAY more games than we have? They alone prove you wrong. Navy won 11 games and beat a good Kansas State squad in Liberty Bowl in 2019. ELEVEN. WINS. 

Air Force won 11 games in 2019, too, beating Mike Leach, the Air Raid guru in the Cheez-It Bowl. 

The Falcons just finished with 10 wins this year, Army with 9. 

The last time we won 11 games in a season? 2001. Guess what our run/pass percentages were. 70.4% run to 29.6% pass. 

 

[J-MAGIC]

If we can get the same quality of athletes as Ohio State and Alabama, then yes.  Otherwise I'll believe it when I see it.

I'm less skeptical of that number than I am the 55-60% people have been trying push.

Well if you're less skeptical of that number, then what do you want. For us to go from rushing the ball at the third-highest rate in the Big Ten to the first? Is that changing much?

You are misunderstanding the broader point. Alabama and Ohio State, traditionally power rushing teams, looked at the landscape and future of where football was going and said, 'We should stop doing this and throw a lot more." Think about Nick Saban doing that. Every piece of data we have say rushing more than passing, no matter the talent, is the vastly less efficient way to play.

 

[runningblind]

It would appear that you can NOT be successful doing what we're doing. Once again, 3-9. (After a 3-5 season the year prior.)

Yeah, I know, we 'fired the coaches responsible for the shortcomings.' Sure. I seriously doubt that passing MORE is the answer, but with Whipple, the great offensive mastermind, maybe we'll be Pitt 2.0.

How do you explain the success that that the service academies have had in recent years? Winning WAY more games than we have? They alone prove you wrong. Navy won 11 games and beat a good Kansas State squad in Liberty Bowl in 2019. ELEVEN. WINS. 

Air Force won 11 games in 2019, too, beating Mike Leach, the Air Raid guru in the Cheez-It Bowl. 

The Falcons just finished with 10 wins this year, Army with 9. 

The last time we won 11 games in a season? 2001. Guess what our run/pass percentages were. 71.4% run to 29.6% pass. 

We get it.  We will get off your lawn. 

 

[J-MAGIC]

It would appear that you can NOT be successful doing what we're doing. Once again, 3-9. (After a 3-5 season the year prior.)

Yeah, I know, we 'fired the coaches responsible for the shortcomings.' Sure. I seriously doubt that passing MORE is the answer, but with Whipple, the great offensive mastermind, maybe we'll be Pitt 2.0.

How do you explain the success that that the service academies have had in recent years? Winning WAY more games than we have? They alone prove you wrong. Navy won 11 games and beat a good Kansas State squad in Liberty Bowl in 2019. ELEVEN. WINS. 

Air Force won 11 games in 2019, too, beating Mike Leach, the Air Raid guru in the Cheez-It Bowl. 

The Falcons just finished with 10 wins this year, Army with 9. 

The last time we won 11 games in a season? 2001. Guess what our run/pass percentages were. 71.4% run to 29.6% pass. 

1. Bringing up a team's cumulative record to discuss their offensive performance: Very dumb! We had at least a top 40 offense by every schedule-adjusted metric. Our record was bad because we had the worst special teams in the nation and played an insane schedule.

2. The service academies play in the AAC and Mountain West. When they play better teams with speed and NFL talent they almost always get blown away.

3. Mike Leach turned an awful Washington State team into a near-Pac-12 champion, which you're conveniently ignoring.

4. Do not seriously quote the 2001 college football landscape as comparable to 2022 and expect anyone to take you seriously. 

 

[Jeremy]

Well if you're less skeptical of that number, then what do you want. For us to go from rushing the ball at the third-highest rate in the Big Ten to the first? Is that changing much?

You are misunderstanding the broader point. Alabama and Ohio State, traditionally power rushing teams, looked at the landscape and future of where football was going and said, 'We should stop doing this and throw a lot more." Think about Nick Saban doing that. Every piece of data we have say rushing more than passing, no matter the talent, is the vastly less efficient way to play.

What data?

The data I have shows that since September 4th, 2004, when Nebraska football made a drastic departure away from what we were known for offensively, we've gone 127-98. 

Why do we care where we rank in the B1G in terms of rush/pass ratio? We used to nearly lead the nation in all the rushing categories, and it was a source of pride. If anything, all the data shows that what we've done recently, and where we seem to be going are quite inefficient. 

 

[Jeremy]

1. Bringing up a team's cumulative record to discuss their offensive performance: Very dumb! We had at least a top 40 offense by every schedule-adjusted metric. Our record was bad because we had the worst special teams in the nation and played an insane schedule.

2. The service academies play in the AAC and Mountain West. When they play better teams with speed and NFL talent they almost always get blown away.

3. Mike Leach turned an awful Washington State team into a near-Pac-12 champion, which you're conveniently ignoring.

4. Do not seriously quote the 2001 college football landscape as comparable to 2022 and expect anyone to take you seriously. 

1. Every schedule-adjusted metric? What does that mean? I'll concede that the ST were horrible, but MAYBE we would have won more if we scored more touchdowns, which were few and far between. 23 per game against FBS teams just isn't good enough. 

2. While the service academies play lesser competition, they DON'T RECRUIT.  Every team they play is vastly more talented than they are. Yet, somehow, they win WAY more than we do. And no, they don't get blown away, not all the time at least. This year, Air Force beat Nevada, Boise State, and Louisville, 3 teams with a lot of potential NFL talent. I already mentioned Navy's win over KSU a couple years ago. They admittedly struggled this year, but still beat UCF, another team WAY more talented athletically than they are. Army did give up 70 to Wake Forest, but still dropped 56 on the Demon Deacons, which I seriously doubt we could have done. Army played Wisconsin, and lost 20-14.

3. This just further proves my point. Air Force beat the near-Pac 12 champion. 

4. Why couldn't Nebraska run the ball like they did in 2001? Have the rules changed?