Where has Rushing Game Gone?????

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:13 pm

Anyone have a clue? Pope had terrible times getting past LOS many times last Sat. Is our O-line only good at pass protection and not run blocking? Whats up here? I know that if your given the pass alot, keep passing but we still need to conjure up a serious rushing game if we hope to beat Marshall and UT.

We're starting to become a one faceted offense, and thats never good.

Tricky_Falcon · Post by **Tricky_Falcon** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:41 pm

We mostly ran passing patterns because they couldn't stop Jacobs and our receivers. You really look at the negative stuff in a lot of your posts even when the team is doing a good job and that's why a lot of people on here dismiss most of the stuff you post.

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:42 pm

falconboy wrote:Anyone have a clue? Pope had terrible times getting past LOS many times last Sat. Is our O-line only good at pass protection and not run blocking? Whats up here? I know that if your given the pass alot, keep passing but we still need to conjure up a serious rushing game if we hope to beat Marshall and UT. We're starting to become a one faceted offense, and thats never good.

Falconboy: for one of the few times, I agree with you in principle...Talked to coach Stud after the game in a teasing way... but he was NOT happy with the fact that we "couldn't pick up a lousy yard" when we needed to.... On the other hand, OU's coach said they "wanted" to make us 1- dimensional by taking away our run game... seems dumb to me when we're averaging about 300+ yds Passing.... but that's what they wanted to do. But I'd like to see us at least attempt to run the ball early on... our 1st 8 plays or so were passes if I remember correctly, mostly from an empty backfield, with no RB to even "pretend" we'd run the ball. 8)

factman · Post by **factman** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:44 pm

My guess is that we should all be patient until the final two games, when we

"turn Omar loose" in the running game!!!!

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:46 pm

Class of 61 is spot on. OU devised the misguided strategy of making BG "one-dimensional." Unfortunately, that one dimension was throwing the ball, which we excel at doing.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:03 pm

I'm sorry guys but you cannot just dismiss this. Every defense is going to try and take away your running game and make you throw the ball. You can sure as hell beat the living tar out of OU, CMU, BSU, and Temple that way but you will NOT consistently beat good teams if you let the defenses succeed in making you one dimensional.

This football team really infuriates me right now. They beat the living hell out of these crap teams, by abandoning the typical things that it takes to win football games. We don't stop the run and we don't run well. Then when we go against some legit competition we're going to wonder why we suck it up? I'm sorry but, no. If OU's defense has the main goal of shutting down our running game that's understandable. That is the main goal of every defense you will ever face. You cannot let the opposing defenses succeed in that goal.

We have a tailback that was an all MAC guy last year and had nearly 1000 yards. Now all of a sudden we cannot pick up one freaking yard when we need it? This is a bad sign about the mindset this team is taking, I'm sorry.

You want to win championships? Run the ball. Stop the run. Call it boring, call it what you will, but its the RIGHT way to play football. Shrugging off our recent deficincies in this area is fine & dandy when we're blowing out the bottom of the barrel, but if you're willing to do this now just remember it when another quality team shoves it down our throats and doesn't let us get untracked. This stuff is well & good right now to get us 8 or 9 wins a season, mainly because our conference has so many creampuffs. But for all the excitement of this offense, it sure isn't the right way to win consistently against a quality opponent.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:18 pm

hammb:

My feelings on running the ball are clear - I love grind-it-out offenses, but that's not our offense. Our scheme relies on identifying and exploiting matchups. In our base offense, that usually means a receiver, because few teams can match up against four of our best receivers at one time. If a team were to throw up a complex, 6-deep man-zone coverage that took away the pass and THEN we couldn't run, I'd be a lot more concerned.

I don't see that happening, though.

IMO, we have two weeks to get the running game in order before we get a real strong test in Marshall. They have the athletes on D to run with BG and we'll have to beat them at the point of attack - consistently - to win. I think we will.

BelieveNBG · Post by **BelieveNBG** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:29 pm

You can sure as hell beat the living tar out of OU, CMU, BSU, and Temple that way but you will NOT consistently beat good teams if you let the defenses succeed in making you one dimensional.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will beat the tar out of any team that is stupid enough to stack the box with eight guys and try to defend our receivers with 3 in the field. Our receivers are too talented for that type of defensive scheme to stop us. As for run yards, we will have to see how we fare when we play a team that decides to play in a manner to stop the pass. If not, we will keep lighting up the pass. As for the tougher tasks that lie ahead, I hope we pass all day on that UT secondary. That is their weekness and if we pass alot, we will score often and that game will not be a contest. If we go in there playing a run/run conservative approach, we will be playing into their hands.

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:37 pm

BelieveNBG wrote:You can sure as hell beat the living tar out of OU, CMU, BSU, and Temple that way but you will NOT consistently beat good teams if you let the defenses succeed in making you one dimensional.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will beat the tar out of any team that is stupid enough to stack the box with eight guys and try to defend our receivers with 3 in the field. Our receivers are too talented for that type of defensive scheme to stop us. As for run yards, we will have to see how we fare when we play a team that decides to play in a manner to stop the pass. If not, we will keep lighting up the pass. As for the tougher tasks that lie ahead, I hope we pass all day on that UT secondary. That is their weekness and if we pass alot, we will score often and that game will not be a contest. If we go in there playing a run/run conservative approach, we will be playing into their hands.

Exactly if a team is going put 8 men up in the box, then why not go to your strength? It's stupid to run for the sake of running when you can easily throw the ball all over the field. OU sold out on the run on Saturday and basically left 3-4 players in coverage that do not have the athletic skills to cover are guys. ....Had we run into a line of 8 people all day and gained two yards at a time there would be people here complaining that we did not exploit OU's sorry pass defense. We throw for 400 yards in 3 quarters but that it a bad thing. Take a look at the bright side OU had about 150 yards of offense through 3 quarters. Would you rather have that?

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:46 pm

Just to be clear, I DO think hammb has a point. We must be able to run the ball consistently if we're going to beat good teams.

Lest anyone misses the point, I don't believe he is saying we should have run right at Ohio. I believe what he is saying is that against good teams, you won't be able to throw at will.

hammb, if I've misinterpreted, I apologize ...

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:59 pm

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. But it seems like Hammb thinks we have to be a running team to win the MAC. 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. So you think the best we can be is 9-2 with this offense; hell of a lot better than 2-9. ...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.

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:06 pm

I didn't get to see the OU game, it wasn't televised and I couldn't make the trip, so maybe they ran a different scheme than I'm used to seeing against us defensively. But I don't believe I've seen 5 plays where a team used an 8 man in the box scheme against us. That would be insane considering we generally have 3 or 4 wideouts. You are correct, that if they're playing 8 men up, you have to throw the ball. You'd be stupid not to.

I just don't think that any team we've played this year has had to completely sell out their pass defense in order to stop our running game. They're concentrating on it yes, but its not like they're putting 8 guys in the box in some 4-4 or something. They're able to shut down our running game by shooting the gaps, and having disciplined line play. In the past so much of our running game was based on misdirections, it looks as though opposing DLs have become familiar with this and have had an easy time defending it. Honestly it seems like 6 guys in the box is enough to shut down our running game this year.

My perception of this offense is that they're having a tough time running this year, but they can easily pass it against these defenses. As a result they abandon the run completely, thus we make OURSELVES one dimensional. This is not a good way to expect to win a championship. In the Urban years, and to a lesser extent last season we were a VERY balanced team. One of the most balanced in the country. You don't think some were trying to stop our running game then? They were, but they couldn't. As a result it made it that much easier to pass.

I'm just afraid that when we play a quality defense we will be two one dimensional, and when we NEED to run it, we won't be able to.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:10 pm

hammb: Valid concern. I think we'll find out for sure against Marshall.

Early prediction: The Pope blesses Marshall with 125+ yards.

bg8492 · Post by **bg8492** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:10 pm

there may come a time when it would be advantageous for us to be able to chew up the better half of a quarter by being able to run the ball effectively (ala Oklahoma). it can be a momentum killer and a clock control tactic. don't HAVE to do it, but be nice to know we CAN do it

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:17 pm

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. 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. ...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. 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.

Where has Rushing Game Gone?????

Where has Rushing Game Gone?????

Re: Where has Rushing Game Gone?????