Rushing to Victory?
6 comments so far
March 25, 2008 by
Friday’s Omaha World-Herald reinforced what many of us expected which is that the Husker offense will likely feature the run to a greater degree next year than this year. We at the Big Red Network had a lively debate internally about the importance of running the ball to winning in the future.
The Sunday Morning Quarterback did a nice review of a number of statistics and their relationship to winning in the Big 12. The top three that emerged were turnovers, third down conversion percentage, and rushing yards. My argument, which would still be considered controversial in Nebraska, is that it’s really just the turnovers and third down percentage that matter. To use a $10 word (and perhaps use it incorrectly), there is an endogenous relationship between rushing and winning. That is, often rushing is caused by winning versus it necessarily being that rushing causes winning.
Last year is a great example. How often were the Huskers so far behind that they had to throw the football late in the game? In other words, the game was already lost so they stopped running the football. Answer a lot. They could have rushed more late in those games but the outcome would have been the same – defeat.
Rather what matters is that you protect the ball and move the chains. A strong running game can be extremely effective in achieving those goals. That is, most teams are more likely to turn the ball over in passing situations than running the ball. Likewise, you can get in a lot of manageable third down situations if you’re running well on first and second down. But one of the great transformations in college football in recent years has been the ability of teams to convert a high proportion of third downs and avoid third downs altogether with a highly efficient passing game. Think of Hawaii and Texas Tech this past season. Each team conceded the run game and both won ten games or more. It also seems that defenses have never been better at taking away the run when they know it’s coming.
You could make the argument about “wearing teams down” by running the ball but the top three Big 12 teams in time of possession all finished with worse records than Texas Tech. Oklahoma was a strong rushing team and Tech beat them head to head.
There’s little doubt that if the Huskers could get back to rushing for 7 yards a clip they’d be extremely good at converting third downs and probably would have fewer turnovers (though the 1999 Husker team would be a big counter-example to that thinking). But as the 2002 squad taught us, you can be one of the best rushing teams in the country, but if it doesn’t make you efficient on third downs you are going to be disappointed with the results.
So while it’s encouraging to think the Huskers will be more committed to running the ball. Ultimately, what we care about is offensive efficiency. If passing the ball gets it done – great. If running gets it done – that’s super. But more than anything you need your team to protect the ball and move the chains on third down. Whatever flavor that comes in, you take it because that’s what it takes to win games.
» Enjoy this article?
Send it to your friend or subscribe to our free newsletter!
Related Stories: Offense
Post a comment
OU7times Mar 25 08
A balanced attack has to be the best offense. The old days of trying to run it down the throat (exclusively) just doesn't really work on a consistent basis anymore. Having a good coach that knows what he is doing (no more smoke and mirrors)is another part of the winning equation.
Husker Mike Mar 25 08
The "rushing/winning" debate can be considered a "chicken vs. egg" debate if viewed in the whole. It's easy to say that when you are down three or four scores in the fourth quarter, you should be trying to throw instead of run. That tends to skew the numbers.
Instead, look at some earlier points in games. Take the second quarter down at Kansas. Nebraska called ZERO running plays in the second quarter. There were three Joe Ganz scrambles/sacks, IIRC. No rushing attempts by any running backs. And Kansas jumped out to a huge lead. Abandoning the running game in the SECOND quarter with a quarterback in his first start was a major factor in that game turning into such an embarrassing blowout.
Now, one can rightfully argue that you can do many things with short passes that approximate much of the rushing game. Certainly Urban Meyer's spread option attack uses forward shuffle passes much like Tom Osborne used option pitches, just inverted. But that's not what we saw with the 2007 Huskers for the most part.
carlinthemarlin Mar 25 08
I think the big thing with Rushing last year is that it could have kept our defense off the field. Running plays keep the clock moving, so you shorten the game by running. When you're defense is struggling, you want to keep them off the field. I think that's the biggest advantage you see with rushing the ball. But of course, there's no right way to do it. Put a good defense on the field in the first place and you don't have to worry as much about shortening the game.
Tara Mar 25 08
I wouldn't care if Lucky ran for 100 or received for 100 per game. I just hope he has a great season & stays healthy. GO LUCKY!
Dan Mar 25 08
I am biased and love to see a great run over a great pass ... but I know when we used to run the option we often struggled to move the ball against equal competition. A strong defense is a must to be able to rely more on the run. The running game requires more patience. The best offensive attack has to have both and not be one dimensional. Look at Missouri last year, they kept people off balance. I can't wait till we get a chance to put a hard lick on Mr. Daniels this year :)
Greg Morrow Mar 25 08
Nebraska needs to be close to a top ten rushing team. Because, Nebraska NEEDS to be tough. The biggest need, at the moment. Both sides need to pound on each other in practice. Part of that is going "hey diddle diddle, right up the middle!", for a portion of the day.
You hear of some of the defensive coaches saying this. To them, it's already a forgone conclusion. They're looking to shock opponents. Right now, the coaches are more confident than the players.
It's the only identity Nebraska can have, to be successful. It's just the lay of the land. We know our little fish bowl can be a difficult place to live in and thrive, for up to 5 college years.
Nebraska needs guys wanting, demanding, to reach their physical and mental potential.
A commited and creative rush offense lends itself to that.