Where has Rushing Game Gone?????

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:28 pm

kdog27 wrote:I agree with Hammb and others who are saying on how you have to have more than one dimension. But it wasn't like we did not try to run the ball. For one OU has a good run defense and secondly they made it their number one goal for the game to stop the run.

It is every team's #1 goal to stop the run, that doesn't mean you cannot still run the ball. If OU was putting 8 guys in the box to stop the run after Omar was shredding them you're going to have to provide me game film to believe it. I will then go on record that OU is the worst defensive coached team in the history of football. Football is a game of adjustments. I have to believe that when we were able to throw on a defense that was geared towards stopping the run they would've changed to some new coverage schemes. At that time we could've went to the run. However, it appears we were STILL ineffective running the ball, but no matter what OU did they couldn't stop our passing game. That's great & all, but NIU did a pretty good job stopping our passing game, and look how that game turned out. Yeah Omar's stats looked good, but eventually they hit our WRs enough that some balls were dropped and/or broken up and we punted. We still only managed 17 points in that game.

But it seems like Hammb thinks we have to be a running team to win the MAC.

Absolutely not. I think we have to be a balanced team to win the MAC. In the end I think our biggest obstacles towards a championship are on STOPPING these power running teams, something we haven't successfully done with any consistency in 4 years. You can certainly win the MAC without being a power I, TE, 2 WR formation. But you can also run out of a single back 4 wide set as well.

I remember the old two back set, it lead us right into the toilet. If we started using it now I think we would have some success with it because of the athletes we have now but it would drive away those same athletes just as fast. I'm sure Turner didn't come here to hand the ball off to a fullback.

I'm certain that he did not come here to hand the ball off. When an offense is running on all cylinders the number of pass plays & run plays should be more or less equal. Right now we are heavily weighted towards passing the ball.

So you think the best we can be is 9-2 with this offense; hell of a lot better than 2-9.

I don't want to act like I think our offense sucks, and will hold us back, but I think there is a mindset that we don't need to be balanced that I'm worried about. It seems like the last few games we've been content to pass the ball over the place and put up tons of points and not worry about trying to run the ball. Against a good defense they're going to hit your WRs and try to force you into some quick 3 & outs, like NIU was able to do. Then you put the onus on your defense to keep you in the game, and on shorter rest at that.

Of course I much prefer 9-2 to 2-9. But I cannot say I'm content with 9-2 either. I want great things. I set my goals for BG football VERY high. I think we are starting to get the athletes that can have us competing on a national level. In short, we are every bit as talented, possibly moreso, than Utah and/or Boise St. this year. I want a run like theirs throughout the season. I want BG to become prominent on the national scale.

I'm quite realistic about the state of BG football, but I am not realistic about the future of BG football. I want the moon, and when I get it, I'll want the stars too.

...I know what you are getting at Hammb but it pretty hard to recruit in the MAC, i think we have done a great job getting the right skill players here. It's the right offense for the conference we are in.

I have no knocks that we're getting the right skill guys in here at all. How could I question the talent of our Backs & Receivers? They're all in the upper echelon of the MAC, and quality enough athletes to compete on the national level.

My biggest question marks remain with the coaching staff. I think we DO have the personnel to run the ball when defenses have started backing off to defend the pass. Our OL returns a lot of guys from last year's group and Pope is one of the best in the conference. But for some reason we're not getting it done. Why? I find it very hard to believe that every defense we face is putting 8 guys in the box when Omar is throwing for 300+ nearly every week.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:34 pm

kdog27 wrote:You are right they did not always have 8 men up but there were a lot of times they had 7 or 8. Going against 4-5 receivers that is insane.

Agreed, it is insane. If they're doing that then we must pass. The games I have attended I have yet to see a defense pack it in to defend our running game this season, however.

It is not hard to stop our run with 7 players up either when you have just 5 linemen and a tailback. You have hit the head on the nail though, teams have figured out the misdirection, we used to run all over the sorry teams with those plays

This is what I'm most afraid of. The scheme alone is not enough to guarantee success now that teams have seen it. That means you must out execute the opposition. We are not doing so.

. ...But at the same time I think that is what you are talking about when we had urban. Teams were not use to defending it then. But by the end of the season (USF and UT) they were all over that stuff, we were so predictable my mom would know what was about to happen. I don't think anything has changed with our backs and line but I think teams have found out that it is quite easy to defend.

Joe Gibbs centers his entire offense around the Counter trey, which is a MAJOR component of our running game as well. It has worked for him at every stop he's ever been at in the NFL for many years. The key is execution.

I honestly wish our QB would go under center a little more often. It would give opposing teams that many more plays to have to worry about it. Hopefully you are wrong and we can beat teams like Marshall and UT with the pass. I think we can.

I hope I'm wrong as well. Perhaps I'm just worried/bitter because we have lost to the only 2 good teams we've played all season, and now everyone is getting super optimistic because we've played a stretch of total patsies.

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:55 pm

Allow me to take a stab at this . . .

-By building a true running game and a balanced offensive attack . . . you dictate how the defense must line up to you. That's when the "idiotic looking to sideline for another play cutesy offense" takes true form. By developing Omar and PJ among others on the option, draw, counter, sweeps, reverses, end-arounds, etc . . . it allows the passing game to open up that much more b/c the defense doesn't know what is coming.

I'm all for exploiting match-ups and I am a firm believer that there isn't a MAC defense that can stop Charles Sharon or Steve Sanders. That being said, they can be slowed if a balance between the run and pass is not established and the "better" teams can sit in zones and commit more guys to the pass.

If we don't get the running game going and exploiting tendacies then this could be a long last two games.

Being able to run the ball and defend the run are mindsets that must be established . . . I'm not so sure that "bend but don't break" fits that philosophy.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:23 pm

Valid points all around here. I am of the belief that if we can continue to scorch teams thru the air, do it. BUT, the lack of the running game does have me concerned. We must be able to run the ball effectively and I haven't seen a whole lot of that this year. Sure some teams have stacked the box with 8 guys and look how we burned them.

Offensive balance is definitely the key...we need to get the running game going. Our line and our backfield are way too good to be averaging just 145 yards a game. The last two years we averaged roughly 200 yards rushing and 200-300 yards passing. This year we are more 150 rushing and 300-350 passing. Of course Omar is lighting it up and the Wideouts have been awesome.

I'm sure Coach Brandon and the staff have thoughts on how to get the job done on the ground. Bottom line....we continue to win games and Omar has been better than any of us could have imagined. The passing is our bread and butter right now and nobody seems able to slow it down, let alone stop it.

GO FALCONS!!!

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:32 pm

Good points Hammb. I'll ride my thinking out as long as it works though

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:14 am

While all points being made are great...I am still sticking to my avatar. We do a lot more passing than running but it works so I don't see a reason to change it that much. IMO, it's about 80% pass, 20% run. If we could make it like 70% pass and 30% run I think it'd be golden. Maybe it's just me, but I don't really like how many running backs we have. If it were up to me, I'd leave Pope out there all game and keep Lane doing ALL the returns. Switching backs every other play has to be confusing for them because they never really get a feel for the defenses I think. Either way...

Get off the tracks when the Pope Train is coming through!!

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 9:16 am

When watching a game on TV, the announcers always start off the game with the "Insert car manufacturer name" keys to victory. And virtually every time, the key for one of the teams is "establish the run" or some variation of relying on the running game first before using the pass. WHY??? It is like one of those unwritten rules about the game that you can't question. To that I say, bullsh!t. Why can't you pass first to open up the running game? Why can't you just say "exploit the defense" as the key. That is, if they are putting 8 in the box, then throw it. If they are dropping 5 back in coverage, then run it. Why do you have to establish the run if that is what the defense is seeking to stop?

When you have a team such as ours that is practically unstoppable pasing the ball, why, for the love of God, would you not pass the ball? We have a great young QB, and an incredible group of WRs. There is not defense in the MAC that can cover thesee guys, so, why oh why would you not exploit that advantage? "Because you have to establish the run to open up the passing game..."

So for my money, we should throw the ball every down as long long as they can't stop us

That being said, let me also say that I am not a fan of the spread offense and would rather see a TE and FB out there in a traditional offense. But the spread works for us and I am not complaining about that. It is all about getting a win.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:14 am

Warthog wrote:Why do you have to establish the run if that is what the defense is seeking to stop?

When you have a team such as ours that is practically unstoppable pasing the ball, why, for the love of God, would you not pass the ball?

The running game gives you control of the clock and control the tempo of the game. While I love the pass, a few more run plays would not hurt at all. If we keep the ball away from out opponents by having more time of possession and still get a TD every 100 yards, we will still win big! Chances are, the opposition will just have less points!

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:48 am

McMetz811 wrote:
Warthog wrote:Why do you have to establish the run if that is what the defense is seeking to stop?

When you have a team such as ours that is practically unstoppable pasing the ball, why, for the love of God, would you not pass the ball?
The running game gives you control of the clock and control the tempo of the game. While I love the pass, a few more run plays would not hurt at all. If we keep the ball away from out opponents by having more time of possession and still get a TD every 100 yards, we will still win big! Chances are, the opposition will just have less points!

McMetz, I know what you are saying about controlling the clock, but that is another one of those cliches. A team can run the ball three straight plays, clock keeps moving, don't pick up a first down, and about two and a half minutes comes off the clock. When our offense is in gear, we cover about 70 yards in two and a half minutes and get a TOUCHDOWN, B G S U! so which team has been more successful? Why the one scoring a TD of course.

I think time of possesion is the most over rated stat in football. It tells you absolutley nothing. We can run like 70 plays, accumulate 500 yards of offense and still only have the ball about 30 minutes. So the opposition also is getting the ball for about thirty minutes and what is the score? About 45-10 in our favor. So what did time of possesion tell us? Nothing! You could argue that number of plays is a better indicator of who controlled the game and I can go along with that to a point. But that also does not account for special team and defensive touchdowns where, in essesence, you have not even run a play and score a TD. Again, this also points out the uselessness of the time of possesion indicator.

With our "not quite hurry up" style offense, we control the tempo of the game by forcing the defense to come to the line immediately. They have to play our style of game to try to defend us. That works to our advantage.

Again, I too would love to see us run the ball more. But I also recognize that you have to go with what works. If they can't stop the pass, then passing it shall be.

Metz · Post by **Metz** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:00 am

Warthog wrote:
McMetz811 wrote: If we keep the ball away from out opponents by having more time of possession and still get a TD every 100 yards, we will still win big!
McMetz, I know what you are saying about controlling the clock, but that is another one of those cliches. A team can run the ball three straight plays, clock keeps moving, don't pick up a first down, and about two and a half minutes comes off the clock. When our offense is in gear, we cover about 70 yards in two and a half minutes and get a TOUCHDOWN, B G S U! so which team has been more successful? Why the one scoring a TD of course.

Totally agree with you but I think you missed what I meant. Time of possession means nothing if you go 3 and out so by saying score a TD every 100 yards, we were getting first downs while mixing more runs into our drives down the field. If we can go 70 yards in two and a half minutes and get a TOUCHDOWN while utilizing more of our rushing game, then I will be completely happy. However, with what you were saying, I do not mind seeing us pass all the way down the field. In fact, if I saw more 60+ yard passes I'd really go crazy but as long as we win, I'm cool with that!!! 8)

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:46 am

Great posts Warthog...The name of the game is to score points while not allowing the opposition to score. At the end of the game, one team has more points than the other...that team wins.

Just win baby!!

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:55 am

My problem is that I'm not so overly confident to believe there is no team in the MAC that can stop our passing game. Moreso I'm not confident enough to believe that we won't have an off day with some dropped balls that result in quick 3 & outs...watch a tape of the NIU game if you don't believe me on those two things.

Right now it appears as though we're perfectly content to not try to run, just throw. Well, if you don't do something, eventually you lose it. Then when we're struggling to get a rythmn throwing the ball what do we do? We lose 34-17 to a conference rival, effectively ending most hopes of an outright championship.

Teams that can run the ball generally can do so against anyone. Teams that rely on the pass generally will have an off day and then they have nothing to fall back upon. Look at the Rams for instance. When they were a balanced offense they were unstoppable and went to a superbowl. Over the following years they have become more and more of a pass first team, and let Marshall Faulk rot away by not giving him enough carries. All of a sudden they're turnover prone and are no longer the dominant force they once were.

I'm not asking for a FB & 2 TEs, and just pounding the opposition into submission. I'm just asking for some balance on offense.

Teams that rely on "outscoring the opposition" through the air rarely end up as the champion at the end. In the past few years we've been very balanced, and now we're getting away from it. We seem enamored with the pass, which is all fine and dandy until we have the dropsies again. Will the rush be there for us when we need it? It wasn't at NIU...

OptionQB · Post by **OptionQB** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 11:55 am

With our "not quite hurry up" style offense, we control the tempo of the game by forcing the defense to come to the line immediately. They have to play our style of game to try to defend us. That works to our advantage.

*** I still have a hard time believing that we are completely dictating what a defense is going to do or how they will line-up.

What we do accomplish is we shorten the length of time that a defense has to subsitute additional players and that works b/c we have 2 of the 3 or 4 "unguardable" receivers in the MAC.

Our offense is in peak form when we line up and no one in the stadium except the coaches and hopefully the players know what the play call is.

Passing is glamorous and running the ball is a mindset and a confidence that is only driven by the attitude set forth by our coaches.

I can see now why they like to throw the ball and Urban mixed in more run.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:40 pm

hammb wrote: Will the rush be there for us when we need it? It wasn't at NIU...

FWIW, we had our second highest yards per carry and third most yards in a game against NIU. 29 attempts, 142 yards, 4.9 per carry. I understand the point you are trying to make, but given the growth of our passing game, maybe we should have passed more against NIU and run less! :shrug:

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Wed Oct 27, 2004 1:52 pm

Warthog wrote:
hammb wrote: Will the rush be there for us when we need it? It wasn't at NIU...
FWIW, we had our second highest yards per carry and third most yards in a game against NIU. 29 attempts, 142 yards, 4.9 per carry. I understand the point you are trying to make, but given the growth of our passing game, maybe we should have passed more against NIU and run less! :shrug:

You can attribute most of the yards on the ground from that game to the first two possesions. After that there were no signs of life in the running game.