ADVERTISEMENT

Run the ball, stop the run, special teams

NEB started the second half of the ILL game with 11 passes (first 10 consecutive) on 12 plays on 3 possessions... that is not committed to the run.
Looking at it in a vacuum.

Illinois scored on the 1st drive of the second half. Putting them up 23-9

Nebraska got the ball, 3 and out with a penalty, all could have been passes, but Martinez is credited with a 7 yard rush.

Illinois scored again 30-9

Nebraska 1 play TD - pass, so that is 4 in a row at the most. 30-16

Ill - punt

Nebraska pass, another martinez run, Ervin run, pass, Ervin run

So it was at most 6 passes to start the half, plays 7 and 9 were definitely runs with Ervin, plus the two Martinez runs.
 
That is how Nebraska will get back to bowl seasons no matter who the head coach is.

1: Downhill rushing attack. Running this out of 4 and 5 WR set's is not the way to do it though. You create an identity that you are a run-first offense that will use multiple RB's, hit the TE's, and pass the ball to your WR's about 15 times a game. Be in through the option, I-formation, diamond, that isn't as important as the identity. You can do this out of the shotgun (Coastal Carolina) or under the center (Jeff Monken) or sound fundamental rushing attack (Klieman).

2: There hasn't been a single team in the Big Ten West to win this division in it's entire history that has not been sound in stop the run, good special teams, and run-oriented attack.

3: While there were tons of people that thought Scott Frost would work out at Nebraska, there were some people who said it would never work here for various reasons and one of those reasons is the inability to recruit the right type of player. When you are spamming out 400+ offers to a single recruiting class, you aren't recruiting to an identity, you are just trying to find easy takes so you don't have to work as hard.

There is no system that will ever be used at Nebraska that will win at a high level that doesn't include these three things - run the damn ball (identity), good run defense, and good special teams. Ameer Abdullah, Rex Burkhead, etc, and go back.

When you establish a run first identity, then you don't have to try and recruit a WR room that is 8 deep of 4-stars, you can have 3 or so solid kids in that group that can play at a high level, be 4 deep at RB with pure studs, a good game manager that doesn't lose you games at QB, good TE play, and most importantly, an offensive line back pushes back the DL every fracking running play all game long.

There are two guys that come to mind that can accomplish these things at a very high level - Chris Klieman and Jeff Monken.
dis a great recipe fo big stage performance. great .500 run dis year.

dis da same offense he ran in past seasons?
 
Frost should take a page out of Dabo's book. Make some pretty wholesale changes. Offer big money to top level recruiters and coordinators. I don't see Frost landing top 20 classes which after transfers was not close to top 20 at the end of the day anymore moving forward. Ucf run gave home a little shine. Now it's gone.

If he is unwilling to make those changes then he should be gone also.
right now, I think his pride is in the way of making offensive staff changes. That would say HIS offense, that he claimed the B1G would have to adjust to, isn't working how he wanted/hoped.

I'm not sure we need to make defensive changes right now. I think they have overachieved based on what most people thought.
 
You are so wrong. You need an NFL caliber QB running your offense. Great QBs make everybody look good. They win games!
That is dependent upon the system that you run. The system that Coach Fisher ran at Florida State and runs at A&M requires an NFL starting QB to win a championship. No way around it.

Wisconsin never had an elite QB until Wilson and hasn't had an elite QB since and they have done well.

When you are run-oriented, your OL and RBs become more important than your QB for success as long as your QB doesn't lose you games (aka turnovers).
 
"running the ball all the time" what???
Alabama was definitely a more run first prior to Jalen Hurts taking over at QB. Since that time their offense is more like Ohio St than it is Wyoming. They were much more conservative on offense with their traditional pro style QB that was as much a game manager than he was a guy to put the team on his back.

In the Miami game, AS AN EXAMPLE, they ran the ball 38 times, as I posted earlier. They ran the ball a whopping 15 times in the first half and 16 times in the 4th quarter when the game was out of reach. Conversely they threw the ball 27 times, of 39 total attempts, in the 1st half, 14 times in the 1st qtr and another 13 in the 2nd and 12 attempts in the entire 2nd half.

In comparison, your Wyoming game, the Cowboys ran the ball 9 times in the 1st, 10 times in the 2nd, 11 in the 3rd and 13 in the 4th. Threw the ball 5 times in the 1st, 5 times in the 2nd, 6 times in the 3rd and 10 times in the 4th. Which equates to 43 rush and 26 pass, not the 50/50 split you insinuated when you wanted me to "guess" the run pass ratio in your earlier post.

Over the course of the entire 2020 season, they threw the ball 275 times in the 1st half and only 150 in the 2nd half. It wasn't the earlier Alabama offense that established the run and passed off play action. They used the pass as much to open up the run and they did the run to open up the pass. That started with Kiffin, continued with Sarkisian and appears to be the MO of B OB as well.

Good chat. Sorry for using capital letters and stuff.
 
That is dependent upon the system that you run. The system that Coach Fisher ran at Florida State and runs at A&M requires an NFL starting QB to win a championship. No way around it.

Wisconsin never had an elite QB until Wilson and hasn't had an elite QB since and they have done well.

When you are run-oriented, your OL and RBs become more important than your QB for success as long as your QB doesn't lose you games (aka turnovers).
And doesn't win you championships as the lack the Big Ten West teams to win a Big Ten title can confirm.
 
Fact: Since 1991, not a single school that doesn't have a dynamic rushing attack with their running backs have won the Big Ten conference title.

You failed.
quantify dynamic

Also, not quite the point I was making. Having a "dynamic" rushing attack doesn't guarantee you will win either.

Monken's offense is 90% run, they throw the ball on average, what 5-7 times per game?

You think the magic pill is bringing in some guy who runs the ball 50 times a game and throws it 5.

As I wrote before, that sort of offense keeps the scores low, possessions low and hopefully you keep the game close and pull one out in the end. The unintended consequence of that is that it keeps you in games that you should be winning by 4 scores and allows the undermanned opponent to keep it close too. This is playing not to lose. That is why the service academies run these styles of offense. They cannot compete man to man, so they use offensive schemes that shorten games. Think Bill Callahan vs USC. Woo hoo bring on the moral victories.
 
Last edited:
A couple years ago while we were playing OSU, we went to the I formation. We ran it down the Buckeyes throat...and scored for one series. Then we went back to our old ways and lost miserably. Get Tom Osborne back in there and show our competition how they must stop the run!!!
You're aware Tom Osborne is 84 years old, no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sinomatic
Fact: Since 1991, not a single school that doesn't have a dynamic rushing attack with their running backs have won the Big Ten conference title.

You failed.
Is this a dynamic running attack?
2013 season. 8th best rushing attack in Big 10

rank G Att yards ave TD APG YPG
8Michigan State1456924334.282340.64173.79

Big Ten champ Michigan St.

You failed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leodisflowers
Alabama was definitely a more run first prior to Jalen Hurts taking over at QB. Since that time their offense is more like Ohio St than it is Wyoming. They were much more conservative on offense with their traditional pro style QB that was as much a game manager than he was a guy to put the team on his back.

In the Miami game, AS AN EXAMPLE, they ran the ball 38 times, as I posted earlier. They ran the ball a whopping 15 times in the first half and 16 times in the 4th quarter when the game was out of reach. Conversely they threw the ball 27 times, of 39 total attempts, in the 1st half, 14 times in the 1st qtr and another 13 in the 2nd and 12 attempts in the entire 2nd half.

In comparison, your Wyoming game, the Cowboys ran the ball 9 times in the 1st, 10 times in the 2nd, 11 in the 3rd and 13 in the 4th. Threw the ball 5 times in the 1st, 5 times in the 2nd, 6 times in the 3rd and 10 times in the 4th. Which equates to 43 rush and 26 pass, not the 50/50 split you insinuated when you wanted me to "guess" the run pass ratio in your earlier post.

Over the course of the entire 2020 season, they threw the ball 275 times in the 1st half and only 150 in the 2nd half. It wasn't the earlier Alabama offense that established the run and passed off play action. They used the pass as much to open up the run and they did the run to open up the pass. That started with Kiffin, continued with Sarkisian and appears to be the MO of B OB as well.

Good chat. Sorry for using capital letters and stuff.
 
Fact: Since 1991, not a single school that doesn't have a dynamic rushing attack with their running backs have won the Big Ten conference title.

You failed.
Is this a dynamic running attack?
2013 season. 8th best rushing attack in Big 10

rank G Att yards ave TD APG YPG
8Michigan State1456924334.282340.64173.79

Big Ten champ Michigan St.

You failed.
If that one was "dynamic" let's take a look at the 2015 Big Ten champs

9Michigan State1455221183.842439.43151.29

Surely that doesn't fit the criteria as a dynamic running attack.
 
just a quick look revealed kiffin ran the ball 1827 times and passed 1310 times over 3 years. that is over 500 more runs
did mess up on my wyo stats. shouldn't always believe the local sportscaster.
you run the ball to set up the pass or could be more clearly said that you run the ball to set up one on one coverage. if you can get the coverage you want and can beat it, then pass if you can complete them
happy trails
 
just a quick look revealed kiffin ran the ball 1827 times and passed 1310 times over 3 years. that is over 500 more runs
did mess up on my wyo stats. shouldn't always believe the local sportscaster.
you run the ball to set up the pass or could be more clearly said that you run the ball to set up one on one coverage. if you can get the coverage you want and can beat it, then pass if you can complete them
happy trails
If you can't see the difference in the Alabama offense from McElwain and Nussmeier eras to Kiffin and Sarkisian eras then I don't know what to tell you.

Kiffin and Sarkisian would use the passing game to create chunk plays, get the safeties and LB out of the box, open big leads then run the ball in the second half with huge leads.

Sorry again for the use of capital letters.
 
who was their qb? those ypg dont look bad if it's who i think is.
Who cares? His quote was

"Fact: Since 1991, not a single school that doesn't have a dynamic rushing attack with their running backs have won the Big Ten conference title."

Having the 8th and 9th best running attacks in the Big Ten (in those respective years) simply cannot be considered dynamic. Rushing for 151 yards per game, also not dynamic.

So, I gave him 2 examples of teams who won the Big Ten title since 2013, that did not have dynamic rushing attacks.
 
Who cares? His quote was

"Fact: Since 1991, not a single school that doesn't have a dynamic rushing attack with their running backs have won the Big Ten conference title."

Having the 8th and 9th best running attacks in the Big Ten (in those respective years) simply cannot be considered dynamic. Rushing for 151 yards per game, also not dynamic.

So, I gave him 2 examples of teams who won the Big Ten title since 2013, that did not have dynamic rushing attacks.
it makes all the difference in the world. simply if you have a great college qb you want to slow the rush and keep the coverage to one on one. 150 to 170 ypg rushing would do that for a team. the coaches care. was it cousins? pretty good qb if he had the time.
 
If you can't see the difference in the Alabama offense from McElwain and Nussmeier eras to Kiffin and Sarkisian eras then I don't know what to tell you.

Kiffin and Sarkisian would use the passing game to create chunk plays, get the safeties and LB out of the box, open big leads then run the ball in the second half with huge leads.

Sorry again for the use of capital letters.
sorry you. no one thinks you build a running game by passing. it's flawed in so many ways.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GammaxuvirHusker
it makes all the difference in the world. simply if you have a great college qb you want to slow the rush and keep the coverage to one on one. 150 to 170 ypg rushing would do that for a team. the coaches care. was it cousins? pretty good qb if he had the time.
Uhm. Read what he wrote. It said nothing about QB play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leodisflowers
NEB started the second half of the ILL game with 11 passes (first 10 consecutive) on 12 plays on 3 possessions... that is not committed to the run.
Did you not watch the first half of the game when Nebraska was, indeed committed to the run?

For the game, Nebraska ran 39 times for 160 yards. 4 yards per carry, which isn’t bad but certainly not great. But let’s not forget 1 carry resulted in 75 yards. So now we are at 38 carries for 85 yards. That’s 2.2 yards per carry for a large sample size.

I also recall that Illinois scored a TD first thing in the second half, so now the team is down 14 and if I’m a coach who saw 2 yards per carry, I’m probably also rolling the dice that Martinez can start to hit some passes.
 
That is dependent upon the system that you run. The system that Coach Fisher ran at Florida State and runs at A&M requires an NFL starting QB to win a championship. No way around it.

Wisconsin never had an elite QB until Wilson and hasn't had an elite QB since and they have done well.

When you are run-oriented, your OL and RBs become more important than your QB for success as long as your QB doesn't lose you games (aka turnovers).
Wisconsin is an average football team, at best. Great QBs win championships plain and simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: leodisflowers
And doesn't win you championships as the lack the Big Ten West teams to win a Big Ten title can confirm.
It's obvious you need a great quarterback to win championships. There's a couple years where Wisconsin could have been a playoff team if they had a qb that was worth a darn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78
in no cap style that appears to be what you like....

did you watch the alabama vs miami game? of course not, your (sic) just mouthing off at something you have no idea about.

alabama ran the ball 38 times and threw the ball 38 times, their leading rusher had 12 carries for 60 yards. their qb was 27 of 38 for 340 and 4 tds. their offense hasn't been what you think it is since they hired kiffin as their oc

saban is a defensive minded coach, so that will always be a constant.

but bohl's offensive schemes at wyoming are nothing like saban's at alabama, especially over the past 4-5 years or basically since derrick henry left alabama.
personally, big fan of no cap style.. :)
 
drove over the hill to watch wyo vs montana st. over the weekend. watched two teams run the ball and throw off the run, great special teams and good defense. both teams had sideline to sideline mlb play, decent rbs and qbs. both qbs could school am on throwing the ball any day of the week. msu has a first year coach who worked under bohl last year. damn few mistakes by either side. nothing cute or trendy just winning, time proven football.
Both teams won?
 
So then it would appear the type of offense is irrelevant if you need a great QB to win titles.
You need a good qb no matter what system you run. Wisconsin has had a few very good teams, but never had a good qb paired with those teams which drastically limited their upside.
 
You need a good qb no matter what system you run. Wisconsin has had a few very good teams, but never had a good qb paired with those teams which drastically limited their upside.
Then the topic should be about recruiting a great QB and not about the type of offense.
 
Fact: Since 1991, not a single school that doesn't have a dynamic rushing attack with their running backs have won the Big Ten conference title.

You failed.

In 2015 Michigan State averaged 151.4 rushing yards per game and won the Big 10.

They won the Big 10 with Dantonio's defense and forcing people to drive 8 to 10 plays or more to score a TD and great special teams.

Not sure there is a guy on that roster that is in the NFL right now.

Their leading rusher was LJ Scott for 699 yards in a 14 game season.

 
You need a good qb no matter what system you run. Wisconsin has had a few very good teams, but never had a good qb paired with those teams which drastically limited their upside.

They had Russell Wilson for a year. Our 1st year in the conference.

They were very damn good that year, but even with a future NFL HOFer as their QB, they simply weren't quite good enough. While they won the Big10 Championship game, they lost 3 games including the Rose Bowl. Melvin Gordon, James White, and Montee Ball were RBs on that team.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78
Why not?

Our best teams running the football 80%+ of the time had great QBs.

Gill, Taylor, Gdowski, McCant, Frazier, Frost, Crouch. Every single one All-Conference, or at least 2nd team All-Conference if not an All-American.

Doesn't matter what offense you run, you need a special trigger man with the ball in his hands every snap. Especially in a run-oriented option offense that many fans are begging to see again.
 
They had Russell Wilson for a year. Our 1st year in the conference.

They were very damn good that year, but even with a future NFL HOFer as their QB, they simply weren't quite good enough. While they won the Big10 Championship game, they lost 3 games including the Rose Bowl. Melvin Gordon, James White, and Montee Ball were RBs on that team.
Their defense wasn't as good back then.
 
The current scheme sucks, and so does the QB. Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Even with all the major talent Oregon had, they never won a natty with it either. It's a failed scheme and failed ideology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshirt73
The current scheme sucks, and so does the QB. Doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.

Even with all the major talent Oregon had, they never won a natty with it either. It's a failed scheme and failed ideology.

Oregon was winning under Chip/Helfrich with mostly 3 stars and low end 4 stars in a very similar fashion to our recruiting. USC, UCLA, and Washington were still out-recruiting them in the Pac12. Their stud QBs in Mariota and Darron Thomas were both 3*s coming out of high school.

As for it being a failed scheme because it never won a Natty? Ridiculous. Their no huddle offense with the zone read scheme and extremely fast execution changed the entire landscape of college football. Everybody thought it was absurd at the time, but you look at the top end teams now and they all have incorporated a number of the concepts that Oregon ran 10-13 years ago.

From 2008-2014 Oregon won 4 Pac10/12 Championships, lost a Natty game 19-22, played in the CFB playoffs in another, and never finished ranked outside the Top 10. I'll take that kind of 'failure' every 3rd year at Nebraska these days.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT