What Kind of Offense Are We Really Trying to Run?

[Mavric]

fwiw: Mike Riley actually has a history of running the ball when he has a good running back.

fwiw: Mike Riley was actually calling plays at that time. Mike Riley is no longer calling plays.

 

[Count 'Bility]

You can be a top 3 rushing team in your conference and still line up in 4 wr sets and considerable amount of the time and throw the ball 50% of the time. It's called balance.

 

[Mavric]

You can be a top 3 rushing team in your conference and still line up in 4 wr sets and considerable amount of the time and throw the ball 50% of the time. It's called balance.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

 

[Count 'Bility]

You can be a top 3 rushing team in your conference and still line up in 4 wr sets and considerable amount of the time and throw the ball 50% of the time. It's called balance.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Why not?

So if you average 450 yards a game, and are nicely balanced at say 55-45 production (pas-run), but still throwing more than running, hence your averaging 202 rushing/game, 248 passing/game, it's not likely?

I only say, cuz this is 2015. 450 yards per game. 193 on the ground, 255 in the air. We were third in total, 2nd in passing, and 7th in rushhing, but a measly 20 yards per game from 2nd in rushing.

Looks pretty likely to me. That was last year, as bad as it seemed. 202 rushing a game gets us #3 in Big ten in 2015.

Of course, now I'm nipicking a yard here and there.

 

[Mavric]

You can be a top 3 rushing team in your conference and still line up in 4 wr sets and considerable amount of the time and throw the ball 50% of the time. It's called balance.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Why not?

So if you average 450 yards a game, and are nicely balanced at say 55-45 production (pas-run), but still throwing more than running, hence your averaging 202 rushing/game, 248 passing/game, it's not likely?

I only say, cuz this is 2015. 450 yards per game. 193 on the ground, 255 in the air. We were third in total, 2nd in passing, and 7th in rushhing, but a measly 20 yards per game from 2nd in rushing.

Looks pretty likely to me. That was last year, as bad as it seemed. 202 rushing a game gets us #3 in Big ten in 2015.

Of course, now I'm nipicking a yard here and there.

Yes, that was last year. And we hardly ever lined up in a 4WR set.

Which teams would you point to as teams that often line up in 4WR sets and are near the top of the rushing stats?

 

[Count 'Bility]

You can be a top 3 rushing team in your conference and still line up in 4 wr sets and considerable amount of the time and throw the ball 50% of the time. It's called balance.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Why not?

So if you average 450 yards a game, and are nicely balanced at say 55-45 production (pas-run), but still throwing more than running, hence your averaging 202 rushing/game, 248 passing/game, it's not likely?

I only say, cuz this is 2015. 450 yards per game. 193 on the ground, 255 in the air. We were third in total, 2nd in passing, and 7th in rushhing, but a measly 20 yards per game from 2nd in rushing.

Looks pretty likely to me. That was last year, as bad as it seemed. 202 rushing a game gets us #3 in Big ten in 2015.

Of course, now I'm nipicking a yard here and there.

Yes, that was last year. And we hardly ever lined up in a 4WR set.

Which teams would you point to as teams that often line up in 4WR sets and are near the top of the rushing stats?

Didnt beck just do it for like 3 years?

4 wr sets can be nitpicked. True 4WR, spread from sideline to sideline, trips to the wide side set? Or are we bunching, using a TE as an Hback. These are variables. At the end of the day, saying we want to utilies 4 reciever sets, or 10/11 personel in some way doesnt mean we cant be a top 3 rushing team. You dont have to man up in 21/22 pers to be a great running team.

 

[SABER]

Nobody really gives a damn if we are winning! Thats really the bottom line

 

[Count 'Bility]

Nobody really gives a damn if we are winning! Thats really the bottom line

Oh horsesh#t. There will ALWAYS be people bitching about how it's done, that it wasnt by enough, or the style doesnt fit, or that it still doesnt quite look good enough for the future. The only time your statement would be true, is if we won the national title, and even then, there'd probably be few who wouldnt be happy till we win the Super Bowl.......

 

[zoogs]

Or he was speaking towards the future and not this year. Based on the QB.

Yeah. This should have been the obvious conclusion.

 

[Mavric]

You can be a top 3 rushing team in your conference and still line up in 4 wr sets and considerable amount of the time and throw the ball 50% of the time. It's called balance.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Why not?

So if you average 450 yards a game, and are nicely balanced at say 55-45 production (pas-run), but still throwing more than running, hence your averaging 202 rushing/game, 248 passing/game, it's not likely?

I only say, cuz this is 2015. 450 yards per game. 193 on the ground, 255 in the air. We were third in total, 2nd in passing, and 7th in rushhing, but a measly 20 yards per game from 2nd in rushing.

Looks pretty likely to me. That was last year, as bad as it seemed. 202 rushing a game gets us #3 in Big ten in 2015.

Of course, now I'm nipicking a yard here and there.

Yes, that was last year. And we hardly ever lined up in a 4WR set.

Which teams would you point to as teams that often line up in 4WR sets and are near the top of the rushing stats?

Didnt beck just do it for like 3 years?

4 wr sets can be nitpicked. True 4WR, spread from sideline to sideline, trips to the wide side set? Or are we bunching, using a TE as an Hback. These are variables. At the end of the day, saying we want to utilies 4 reciever sets, or 10/11 personel in some way doesnt mean we cant be a top 3 rushing team. You dont have to man up in 21/22 pers to be a great running team.

Yes, you can nitpick 4WR sets. I wouldn't say we ran many 4WR sets under Beck. But we did run a lot of one back so if you think it's the same thing I guess that's fine. The distinction for me is when you're using a TE you have an extra blocker that would lend itself to better run blocking. But there probably isn't a big difference.

And yes, we did a lot of that under Beck. We were running an Oregon-style offense. I don't watch a lot of Oregon games but I think they almost always run 3WR and probably often 4. And I love that type of offense - wide open to give room for your play-makers to operate but still be run-heavy.

I see nothing to indicate that Riley/Langsdorf are trying to run that style of offense. So, like I said, it's possible but not likely.

 

[Count 'Bility]

You can be a top 3 rushing team in your conference and still line up in 4 wr sets and considerable amount of the time and throw the ball 50% of the time. It's called balance.

Possible? Yes. Likely? No.

Why not?

So if you average 450 yards a game, and are nicely balanced at say 55-45 production (pas-run), but still throwing more than running, hence your averaging 202 rushing/game, 248 passing/game, it's not likely?

I only say, cuz this is 2015. 450 yards per game. 193 on the ground, 255 in the air. We were third in total, 2nd in passing, and 7th in rushhing, but a measly 20 yards per game from 2nd in rushing.

Looks pretty likely to me. That was last year, as bad as it seemed. 202 rushing a game gets us #3 in Big ten in 2015.

Of course, now I'm nipicking a yard here and there.

Yes, that was last year. And we hardly ever lined up in a 4WR set.

Which teams would you point to as teams that often line up in 4WR sets and are near the top of the rushing stats?

Didnt beck just do it for like 3 years?

4 wr sets can be nitpicked. True 4WR, spread from sideline to sideline, trips to the wide side set? Or are we bunching, using a TE as an Hback. These are variables. At the end of the day, saying we want to utilies 4 reciever sets, or 10/11 personel in some way doesnt mean we cant be a top 3 rushing team. You dont have to man up in 21/22 pers to be a great running team.

Yes, you can nitpick 4WR sets. I wouldn't say we ran many 4WR sets under Beck. But we did run a lot of one back so if you think it's the same thing I guess that's fine. The distinction for me is when you're using a TE you have an extra blocker that would lend itself to better run blocking. But there probably isn't a big difference.

And yes, we did a lot of that under Beck. We were running an Oregon-style offense. I don't watch a lot of Oregon games but I think they almost always run 3WR and probably often 4. And I love that type of offense - wide open to give room for your play-makers to operate but still be run-heavy.

I see nothing to indicate that Riley/Langsdorf are trying to run that style of offense. So, like I said, it's possible but not likely.

I dont either. I'm not getting any sense of spread it out, of which when you do, you want the qb involved in the running game so you raise the level of deception, which of course the types of qb's that we're getting in on, yeah, that aint happening. Were heading in this conventional, pro style direction, but what is that exactly? watching full games of teams like Alabama and Michigan St, they are well rounded teams with high levels of multiplicity in their personnel and formations. Throw Stanford in there as well. Not leaning on one philosophy personell wise I think allows you to be more well rounded talent wise. Looking at what we're accomplishing on the recruiting front at the WR position, we could very well be in a position in 2018 where, in a 10 personnel set, we have 3 4 star receivers, a 5 star, 4 Star qb, and 4 star rb. What things like that do for matchups and being able to basically pick your poison. it's definitely an interesting discussion.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

It's obvious by the type of QB's and the plethora of WR's being recruited that Riley and Langsdorf wants to have a pure, drop-back passing game. Langsdorf loves to sling the ball around, and wants a QB that can do so. They tried to do that last year with limited success with Armstrong.

The thing with Armstrong is that he isn't great at the throws that Riley and Langsdorf want to utilize. Armstrong is very good at the QB run plays that Riley and Langsdorf struggle to utilize. That's going to cause a strange dichotomy with the coaches and the QB. Riley probably heard from the fans and media that he should be running the ball more and his current QB doesn't should encourage more running plays.

However, after this year, I expect Riley and Langsdorf to go full-bore with their passing attack. That will be fine if it's successful. However, he should have something prepared for when it's cold and/or windy that many B1G games can experience. It's going to be hard for the team to "flip a switch" and be a running team when the weather dictates it.

 

[zoogs]

You're looking for a fire here, Mav, and there isn't one.

A true freshman in line for playing time because Nebraska plans to have so much of it to go around for receivers, doesn't care about that and still wants to leave. I think few outside Grim really understand the whole context, though it's probably for the best. He obviously wants something else.

I suspect the coaches aren't going to run as much as one might like for Nebraska, either. Unless we're winning handily all the time. I think back to 06 and "pound the rock", that sort of stated mentality, on a team with a bigger armed QB and a more dangerous set of receivers.

 

[QMany]

fwiw: Mike Riley actually has a history of running the ball when he has a good running back.

Riley has had four 4* RB at his disposal here, I'm guessing more than he ever had at OSU.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

fwiw: Mike Riley actually has a history of running the ball when he has a good running back.

Riley has had four 4* RB at his disposal here, I'm guessing more than he ever had at OSU.

Riley should also have better o-linemen at his disposal at NU, which should encourage even more running the ball.