Hmmmmm...Run pass ratios of good teams
- Thread starter Tulsa Tom
- Start date
That's where we differ - I don't believe we'll ever have all the elite level talent here for every position all at once given our natural recruiting disadvantages (although we will be elite in different areas year over year). I like your optimistic outlook though.
Just look at Michigan - generally considered to have elite talent at most positions and even with just a serviceable QB they struggle to get 10 wins and get blown out by OSU.
Last edited:
TT is hilarious. Gets put on vacation for trolling then comes back to troll.
Must be inaccurate. Bad teams have to pass all the time.
The point is that the majority of college teams - both good and bad - are run heavy. I'm not arguing that our play calling was effective. I'm not happy with our performance either.
Trolling: Providing a point of view that is disliked by the controllers of the board. There are plenty here who believe that our type of pro style offense is not what championship teams run.
That's nice to know, but you got to have the "hosses" up front and very good RB's behind, and I'm not totally convinced we have either one.
What do you think Clemson, Alabama, Oklahoma, Michigan St and Ohio State's record would be if they ran our ratio of run/pass plays?
I don't really give a damn about ratios but I prefer a run oriented offense. Strong running game, balance and the ability to effectively use play action pass.
Probably at least one more loss. Clemson loses to Louisville, Oklahoma loses to TCU, Michigan State losses a couple of games, etc.
Clemson and OU, most likely the outcome of those 2 games stay the same. MSU, possible. Alabama and Ohio St??
Point is that the teams you listed have superior talent. They can have the same pass/run ratios as Nebraska and still win as many games as they have.
@eightlaces: Interesting fact: UM's Harbaugh gets lauded for running game; Riley shunned for inconsistency. #Huskers finish reg season 168/gm; UM 153
Why would a coach strive to want to be balanced? A team should want to run plays that work to produce wins. Stats are over rated. The only stat I care about is wins. Run pass ratio is crap. Use what works. Pass 70% of the time if it's successful and produces wins. Run 80% of the time if it works and we win. Why be balanced for the sake of being balanced? That's not what we should want philosophically from our coaches. Our coaches are not the ones we want.....
Interesting stat. Gotta be able to run it when you need to though. Bet Jim wouldn't have passed on 4th and 1.
So let me get this straight: Questioning the offensive philosophy of the current .500 WPC well-paid coaching staff is trolling, but insulting our amateur QB/OL student-athletes is not? And done by a mod who should set the example.
You are straight on it. Now...I don't think Riley should be fired but I would love to see him change up the offense to utilize the power run game.
The answer seems obvious to me... With good balance, opposing defenses can't load up to defend one thing or another.
I get the Desire for a power running game. But the balance is not just something to be proud of (look at us! We run nearly the same number of run and pass plays!)... It is to keep defenses guessing. If well executed it can be very effective. If you need a yard for a first down, the defense isn't quite sure if you will run it for a first or hit the tight end...
We were balanced this year, but could easily have been more effective. Balance with better execution would be pretty devastating, I would imagine...
This isn't the first thread he has started about this this season. Same old song and dance with him.
Yes I am a mod and yes I think that TA is bad and is not capable of running even a watered down version of this offense. If we had an average QB this season would look a lot different in the W/L column. Anyone who knows a lick about football will tell you the same, but obviously a few people around here just look at percentages and start throwing out BS without looking at the entire picture. There is so much more to it than percentages that you have to take into consideration.
Power run game is a difference in blocking and to an extent personnel..
So if someone watches this team and concludes "We don't have the talent at QB to succeed with this offense, so let's commit to a developing a better running game" instead of "We don't have the talent at QB to succeed with this offense, but that's perfectly okay because it will get better someday" - that's not a valid opinion just because that person disagrees with you?
Your sanctimonious finger-wagging and because-I-said-so lectures are every bit as tired and annoying as any of the trolling that goes on here. If I get a "vacation" for saying so, so be it.
So why blame the amateur athlete when his supposed leaders, the coaches, are not doing THEIR part well? Why do you and others defend a 1st year coaching staff so vehemently, when Tommy and other student athletes, have sacrificed on the field and in the classroom as OUR HUSKERS for multiple years? I'm sorry, I just don't get you guys. Riley and staff have done NOTHING to prove their loyalty to our program but take a nice paycheck. Why do you take the millionaire coaches' side and not stand up for our student-athletes who ARE being mis-managed?
When has an offense that is predicated on a 50/50 split at Nebraska ever been truly successful?
There is a historical template at Nebraska that is predicated around running the football and dominant offensive lines. I hope one day that Nebraska will find a coach that gets back to what has traditionally always worked. I really wish that Nebraska would of hired Tom Herman last year. I think he would of been exactly what the program needed.
Guessing? This is football. Who cares about fooling the defense! That's our problem! Our program has turned into a bunch of *ussies! What happened to dominating the defense? "Hey defense, here's what we are going to do. Try and stop us!" For crying out loud, get some balls and play football. I swear these coaches we have now make it harder than it should be.
Well it's obvious we didn't have the personnel to establish a consistent rushing attack. There were games where we couldn't run or carried for like 2 ypc. That wasn't going to get it done. Passing the ball more gave us the best chance to be in position to win games because WR was by far the strongest part of this offense. I'm tired of people that obviously can't look at the big picture and take into consideration all of the factors that go into the plays. I doubt many people here actually break down film and watch/analyze the games like I do so it's hard for the average fan to look at that kind of stuff though I guess.
Am I happy with 5-7? Hell no, but I can see that we are a few players away from being a damn good football team.
Maybe the piss poor teams are trying to emulate the formula the better teams have found that wins games?
Holy cow, Tommy is a great person and a tough, competitive SOB, but a good D1 QB he is not, but he is the best WE have because this last staff was garbage when it came to recruiting. This staff deserves time to get it's players into place. If we are still experiencing this in 4 years then I'll be the first one saying they need to go. The last terrible staff got 7 years. Riley deserves at least 4.
I think there a fundamental difference in the idea of establishing the run within an offense that is predicated on trying to be 50/50 then an offensive philosophy that is predicated around an actual ground attack.
Mike Riley historically has never based his offensive system on that philosophy. That will never be the focus of his offense.
Mike Riley historically has never based his offensive system on that philosophy. That will never be the focus of his offense.
We averaged 4.6 ypc. That was 4th in the Big Ten and better than Michigan State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana. However, we were 10th in rushing attempts.
First, you act like we couldn't run it. That simply is not true since we did it better than most. Second, since we could run it, why wouldn't our coaches run it more but instead put us in the bottom third of the conference in attempts?
Last edited:
Wow, a few things:
1. Back to blaming the last staff, nice deflection.
2. What is the definition of a D1 QB? There's not a definitive answer to that. It's a coaches job to put his players in the best position to succeed according to their skillset. We were told this staff would. Lies. Riley & Langsdorf have chosen to sacrifice wins and embarrass our program for selfish philosophical reasons.
3. Four years? 4 yrs? I don't think a lot of fans are gonna put up w this crap coaching for that long. Just so ya know.
Last edited:
Does a balanced offense mean your pass/run production is balanced or just the number of plays?
YTD season stats:
Team A (Alabama 11-1)
Run 58% Pass 42%
Rush yards: 2474
Pass yards: 2582
Total yards: 5056
Team B (Nebraska 5-7)
Run 50% Pass 50%
Rush yards: 2014
Pass yards: 3296
Total yards: 5310
Team C (G. Tech 3-9)
Run 75% Pass 25%
Rush yards: 3074
Pass yards: 1462
Total yards: 4536
Team D (Wash St 8-4)
Run 28% Pass 72%
Rush yards: 959
Pass yards: 4764
Total yards: 5723
Who has a more balanced offense between Alabama and Nebraska?
Yardage-wise, it's Alabama.
Pass/Run-wise, it's Nebraska.
Nebraska ended up with more total yards.
How about Oregon? They are good. Are they balanced?
Oregon's offense ratios of plays and yardage difference:
2015 63% Run; 328 more rushing yards 9-3
2014 58% Run; 1169 more passing 13-2
2013 58% Run; 233 more passing 11-2
2012 65% Run; 1210 more rushing 12-1
2011 62% Run; 1059 more rushing 11-2
2010 61% Run; 543 more rushing 12-1
2009 62% Run; 668 more rushing 10-3
2008 61% Run; 979 more rushing 10-3
Oregon rushes the ball 61% of the time on average.
They've averaged 11 wins and 2.13 losses since 2008.
Old article about Okie St balanced offense
http://newsok.com/article/3295554
2007 Okie St rushed and passed for 3,161 yards each.
The offensive coordinator defined a 'balanced offense' in the article:
"Balanced offense is doing what it takes in that particular moment to win. You would be able to run the ball and pass the ball any time you want to, not because you have to. That keeps the defense guessing at all times."
"Balance is more a product of having success throwing deep on first down off play action, or converting third-and-eight with a draw play than doing the opposite in opposite situations."
YTD season stats:
Team A (Alabama 11-1)
Run 58% Pass 42%
Rush yards: 2474
Pass yards: 2582
Total yards: 5056
Team B (Nebraska 5-7)
Run 50% Pass 50%
Rush yards: 2014
Pass yards: 3296
Total yards: 5310
Team C (G. Tech 3-9)
Run 75% Pass 25%
Rush yards: 3074
Pass yards: 1462
Total yards: 4536
Team D (Wash St 8-4)
Run 28% Pass 72%
Rush yards: 959
Pass yards: 4764
Total yards: 5723
Who has a more balanced offense between Alabama and Nebraska?
Yardage-wise, it's Alabama.
Pass/Run-wise, it's Nebraska.
Nebraska ended up with more total yards.
How about Oregon? They are good. Are they balanced?
Oregon's offense ratios of plays and yardage difference:
2015 63% Run; 328 more rushing yards 9-3
2014 58% Run; 1169 more passing 13-2
2013 58% Run; 233 more passing 11-2
2012 65% Run; 1210 more rushing 12-1
2011 62% Run; 1059 more rushing 11-2
2010 61% Run; 543 more rushing 12-1
2009 62% Run; 668 more rushing 10-3
2008 61% Run; 979 more rushing 10-3
Oregon rushes the ball 61% of the time on average.
They've averaged 11 wins and 2.13 losses since 2008.
Old article about Okie St balanced offense
http://newsok.com/article/3295554
2007 Okie St rushed and passed for 3,161 yards each.
The offensive coordinator defined a 'balanced offense' in the article:
"Balanced offense is doing what it takes in that particular moment to win. You would be able to run the ball and pass the ball any time you want to, not because you have to. That keeps the defense guessing at all times."
"Balance is more a product of having success throwing deep on first down off play action, or converting third-and-eight with a draw play than doing the opposite in opposite situations."
Nice try at using selective statistics to 'prove' a point. Lets lay it all out there.
NU: 434 rushes on the season vs 439 passes. NU averaged 4.64 per rush at 167.8 per game.
MU: 445 rushes on the season vs 384 passes. MU averaged 4.12 per rush at 152.7 per game.
Harbaugh is lauded for sticking to the run because he clearly did. The fact that his team didn't have a particularly strong run game made no difference to him, it would seem, because he understands the importance of running the ball in college football.
Against the teams on our schedule we averaged
Loss: BYU: 3.4 ypc on 37 attempts
Win: USA: 7.0 ypc on 37 attempts
Loss: Miami: 4.8 ypc on 32 attempts (Had to pass more because we were down by a lot)
Win: So Miss: 6.2 ypc on 39 attempts
Loss: Illi: 5.5 ypc on 34 attempts
Loss: Wisc: 5.3 ypc on 37 attempts
Win: Minnesota: 5.2 ypc on 39 attempts
Loss: NW: 2.2 ypc on 38 attempts
Loss: Purdue: 2.7 ypc on 29 attempts ( Was down big in the 4th had to pass to get back into the game)
Win: MSU: 5.0 ypc on 36 attempts
Win: Rutg: 4.6 ypc on 38 attempts
Loss: Iowa: 3.6 ypc on 38 attempts.
Avg YPC vs B1G: 4.27
Avg YPC in Losses: 3.93
Avg YPC in Wins: 5.60
Avg attempts in 7 losses: 35
Avg attempts in 5 wins: 38
Looks like in the games we won we were able to establish a rushing average of around 5.6 ypc and in our losses we averaged 3.93 ypc. Once we got into conference play our ypc dropped off and we were behind late in some games so yea we were forced to pass more.
Last edited:
LOL Crap coaching is what you experienced from the last staff. They are to blame for most of the problems this season. This staff will be here 4 years or more like it or not. The "fans" bitching about this current staff and wanting them fired at this point in their tenure here are just more clueless idiots who know nothing about football.
I'm too lazy to look right now but I'd be curious to see the passing numbers in these games. Minnesota is also kind of a surprising stat considering Nebraska was pretty much shoving them around in that game. Either way with these pass oriented offenses the more of a threat your moving the ball by air is the better you'll do on the ground. Nebraska right now isn't a team that is going to kill you through the air, they can move the ball but it's not a great enough threat to open up a running game that many want to see.
First I messed up some rushing stats and fixed them above. I put Minnesota's rushing stats for ours lol. Here are the passing stats:
L- BYU: 24/41 attemps 7.8 ypp
W- USA: 26/38 8.0 ypp
L- Miami: 25/42 9.0 ypp
W- So. Miss: 23/35 10.5 ypp
L- Ill: 10/31 3.4 ypp
L- Wisc: 11/28 4.6 ypp
W- Minn: 18/26 10.0 ypp
L- NWU: 24/48 6.1 ypp
L- Purdue: 29/48 8.5 ypp
W- MSU: 19/33 9.7 ypp
W- Rutgers: 14/21 9.0 ypp
L- Iowa: 25/45 6.6 ypp
Avg YPP vs B1G: 7.24
Avg YPP in Losses: 6.56
Avg YPP in Wins: 9.44
Avg attempts in 7 losses: 40
Avg attempts in 5 wins: 31
In our wins this season we averaged 38 rushes and 31 passes and our average per completion was almost a first down every time.
In our losses we averaged 35 rushes and 40 passes
The only conference games in which NU was so far behind that it was "forced" to pass more were Purdue and Michigan State. And in the case of Purdue, NU was behind because it put a walk-on QB in positon to hand the opponent 28 points off turnovers. Perhaps if I exhaustively broke down the film, I could grasp the bigger picture of how abandoning the running game gave us the best chance to win against Purdue, which had far and away the worst rush defense in the Big Ten and one of the worst in the country.
And before you tell me that our ypc against Purdue proves that NU couldn't run the ball against the nation's 109th ranked rusihng defense, keep in mind that it was badly skewed by sacks and the bad snap that went for a gigantic loss AND a turnover.
As for the Michigan State game, I was very pleased with Nebraska's offensive balance that night. The final tally showed a lot of passes because NU was down by two scores late in the game and had to throw. But until then, NU ran the ball very effectively against a team that many swore up and down would completely stuff our running game.
And before you tell me that our ypc against Purdue proves that NU couldn't run the ball against the nation's 109th ranked rusihng defense, keep in mind that it was badly skewed by sacks and the bad snap that went for a gigantic loss AND a turnover.
As for the Michigan State game, I was very pleased with Nebraska's offensive balance that night. The final tally showed a lot of passes because NU was down by two scores late in the game and had to throw. But until then, NU ran the ball very effectively against a team that many swore up and down would completely stuff our running game.
Last edited:
I am gonna bet that those teams may have a little bit better offensive line than Nebraska does at this piint as well. May make a tad bit of a difference.
Tom, it's just a stat. If our defense hadn't been so porous this season, I'm sure we would have run more, particularly if our Oline was functioning. Nothing wrong with our offensive scheme. Don't you think we would have run more if we were efficient running the ball? Sure miss Ameer.
Stoops at OU is a pretty good example of this - In his first years there a power run game won OU a national title - he for some reason migrated away from that and although his offensive stats went up his defense went down. Now it appears he is going back this and all the sudden his defense is getting better also
A power run game may not be sexy at times but it wears on the opposing team and helps your defense and builds toughness and of course wins games
That number was a bit artificial for that staff as Callahan basically gave up in a couple of games like the OU game he just conceded and did not throw at all
Similar threads
