BG Rushing Attack?

AJatBG · Post by **AJatBG** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:22 pm

2 games into the season and our offense has zero rushing touchdowns?

Is this cause for concern? Should we sometimes line up in the I and power some in? Or if we line up in the I, is it now a dead giveaway that we will run the ball? Or, does it really matter how we score as long we keep scoring?

kdog27 · Post by **kdog27** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 5:34 pm

We did have over 200 yards rushing against SEMO with a wide assortment of backs. When you need to get considered is when both the passing and rushing attacks fail. A poor running day was expected against OU.

BGSU33 · Post by **BGSU33** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 6:29 pm

I am a little concerned about our running game too. With all the RBs and OL we have back, I was hoping to see more from our running game thus far. I like that we moved the ball on the ground with a lot of different players against SEMO, and I knew running the ball against Oklahoma was going to be tough, but I was hoping for a little more success. I think the one area we still aren't sure of after two games is, when we get down in the redzone against a team like NIU, will we be able to punch it in from the ground? Because that is something we could do and proved last season and were very successful in doing so with Harris and Pope. NIU has a very good defense. It's not as strong as Oklahoma's but it's much tougher than SEMO's. I hope we are okay in this area.

orangeandbrown · Post by **orangeandbrown** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 7:08 pm

I doubt if you see too much I formation.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 9:32 pm

We should have run the wishbone down the throats of Oklahoma!

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Mon Sep 13, 2004 10:11 pm

AJatBG wrote:2 games into the season and our offense has zero rushing touchdowns?

Is this cause for concern? Should we sometimes line up in the I and power some in? Or if we line up in the I, is it now a dead giveaway that we will run the ball? Or, does it really matter how we score as long we keep scoring?

AJ! First of all it was great meeting you & tailgating before the game the other day!

Secondly, I'm with you. I am slowly coming around to our offensive style, but deep down inside I'm still a fan of power running. Line it up, pound for 5 yards, do it again. The ability to tell the defense, "Hey we're running off Right Tackle" then executing it to perfection is something that cannot be understated. You can actually grind the will right out of a team with that sort of attack. Unfortunately, it is just not our style. Our run game is built on misdirection & deception. I think we'll see it a little more in the future games and it should be alright. I always hated the option when J5 was here, he looked clueless running that play at times. However, Omar looks as though he has a MUCH better grasp on the option than Harris ever did. Perhaps we'll see some more option this season than in year's past? I never liked it before because we ran it poorly and that can be dangerous. If they can execute the speed option 5-6 times a game it can be a real asset to us.

Warthog · Post by **Warthog** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 8:49 am

I agree with the concerns about our running game. Yes we ran for 200 yards against SEMO, but it took 50 attempts to do that. We only averaged 4.3 per attempt. And it seemed like that was about exactly what we got on each attempt too. There were no big gainers. When playing an overmatched opponent, I was expecting to see us run it at will, 6, 7, 8 yards each carry, with that edge of excitement on each one that it just might go all the way. That never happened. We just seemed to plod slowly down the field. I hope we can do better in the future.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:39 am

Warthog wrote:we ran for 200 yards against SEMO, but it took 50 attempts to do that. We only averaged 4.3 per attempt. And it seemed like that was about exactly what we got on each attempt too.

Woody would have been proud of that running game.
4 yards and a cloud of dust!

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:54 am

transfer2BGSU wrote:
Warthog wrote:we ran for 200 yards against SEMO, but it took 50 attempts to do that. We only averaged 4.3 per attempt. And it seemed like that was about exactly what we got on each attempt too.
Woody would have been proud of that running game.
4 yards and a cloud of dust!

Nothing wrong with averaging 4.3 yards per carry against good competition. Against a 1AA school, however, it is a little discouraging.

Class of 61 · Post by **Class of 61** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:55 am

Secondly, I'm with you. I am slowly coming around to our offensive style, but deep down inside I'm still a fan of power running. Line it up, pound for 5 yards, do it again. The ability to tell the defense, "Hey we're running off Right Tackle" then executing it to perfection is something that cannot be understated. You can actually grind the will right out of a team with that sort of attack. Unfortunately, it is just not our style. Our run game is built on misdirection & deception. I think we'll see it a little more in the future games and it should be alright. I always hated the option when J5 was here, he looked clueless running that play at times. However, Omar looks as though he has a MUCH better grasp on the option than Harris ever did. Perhaps we'll see some more option this season than in year's past? I never liked it before because we ran it poorly and that can be dangerous. If they can execute the speed option 5-6 times a game it can be a real asset to us.[/quote]
Hambb,
I agree with you on your desire to see a bit more running. Omar definitely looked more comfortable running the option than J-5 did... and I WAS pleased to see us take some snaps from 8) 8) under center as opposed to our usual spread. It's my personal feeling that this was perhaps Josh Harris' biggest problem when moving to the Ravens. No experience with 3-5-7 step drops etc., reads from the shotgun I would think are a bit easier than from under center with potential for more early pressure etc.

transfer2BGSU · Post by **transfer2BGSU** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:57 am

Nothing discouraging at all.

The rest of my comments are better left unsaid.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 1:55 pm

Didn't Central's running back get like 164 yards rushing against the Spartans? Wow! And Pope only gets 68 yards against SEMO? Yeay, I'd say our running game last Sat. was very disappointing. I agree with hammb too that we need to run a little more out of a power I at times or at least with a couple of TE's or a fullback like Dibacco. I will say that it's sad we only pass once to the TE every game. What reciever was it that caught that 4th down pass at Oklahoma that kept their drive alive , a TE. TE's can be very dangerous when you know how to use them. OSU and Mich use their TE's very often in games , and I wish we would too.

falconboy

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:02 pm

I love running the ball down people's throats, but that's not gonna happen, gang. The running game will come along. We have a stable of talented backs and a dandy offensive line. I'm wondering of Coach Brandon and his crew are keeping something up their sleeve for Northern.

falconboy: Be patient with the TEs. Brandon made it clear he wants to get more athletic at that position. If everything I hear about Winovich is true, we could be well on our way.

Falconboy · Post by **Falconboy** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:27 pm

What does that mean? Why do we need to get more athletic at TE befoe we use em'? That doesnt make sense to me. :coo-coo: Is that the reason why we only pass to the TE every other leap year it seems? :shrug:

falconboy

hammb · Post by **hammb** » Tue Sep 14, 2004 2:29 pm

Woh now. I said my preferred offensive style is to line 'em up & smash 'em in the mouth. That is not the type of system we run, and I see no reason to change our system, it clearly works. I'm not advocating that we do line up in the "I". Sure I prefer an "I" back system and smashing them in the mouth, but that is not our offense, and we don't have the personnel for it. Playing outside your means would be simply dumb.

I do think we need to run the ball more effectively than we were able to this weekend. That doesn't mean that we run out of the "I" necessarily. Barry Sanders played for almost his entire career in a single back set w/ a run 'n' shoot offense. He had no problem gaining yards! Our running game has been among the best in the country the past 2 years and very little, if any, of that has come from the "I" formation.

Our running game is not one of power, but one of mis-direction. As I said we run a LOT of counters. I would bet 75% of our RBs' carries come on counter plays. These are especially effective for us, because we'll have the QB go the other way and it gives the defense pause for a second or two to determine who has the ball. We also run counters with the QB keeping the ball, and the RB making it look as though he's got it. A lot of misdirection and confusion is what fuels our running game. This can be very effective, even against good defenses. However, it was very ineffective this Saturday. Perhaps coach Brandon doesn't want to risk Omar against SEMO, I don't know, but his offensive scheme is one that forces the QB to be an athlete and take some hits. If he wants to get back to the success we've had he must be willing to make Omar a playmaker.

That said, as I noted earlier Omar runs the option way better than J5. J5 never seemed to know for sure when to make the pitch or when to keep it. Not knocking him, I loved him as much as anyone, this was clearly just not his strength. In the OU game we ran option a number of times and Omar ran it flawlessly. He waited until the defense committed to him and pitched it out. If they waivered in their committment he'd take it himself for some yardage. Running the option is an artform, but when done well it can give defenses FITS in combination with our spread attack.

As for the TE, I think our problem is that we haven't had the type of TEs that our offense requires. I'm with 87 on this one, thinking that Winovich will remake the TE position for our team. I am a HUGE advocate of the TE, which is why I was so thrilled with teh Browns first round pick this year. The things a big, athletic TE can do to open up the field for your offense are too many to list here. No offense to any of the TEs we've had here in recent years, but they are just not the level of assets that our system would require to properly use the TE.

BG Rushing Attack?

BG Rushing Attack?

Re: BG Rushing Attack?

Re: BG Rushing Attack?

Our running game poor compared to Central Mich.vsMich.ST.

Get more athletic??