The Running Game, Offense, and Some Stats

i almost got into reading all of the posts on here and thinking that we needed to do something different with our rushing game....

then i thought about the wins and losses.

tOSU - good rushing game. lost on turnovers and blown coverage in defensive backfield - making first round draft picks out of two tOSU WRs.

ksu - average to mediocre rushing game once starting QB got injured on first drive - of course they stacked up against the run... we scored 42 and lost on blown coverage in defensive backfield. two trick plays worked and we couldn't cover Jordy.

aggy - of course we couldn't rush... our qb had one arm, and it wasn't his throwing arm... we lost because we didn't have a backup QB at this point.

so, in summary, while the rushing game was fairly average, and certainly not at the standard we had come to expect over the last eight years or so, i'm not too concerned about it.

as hp pointed out, 500 yards is 500 yards...

screw yards, i want more points for us and fewer points for them.
 
The team that didn't say "oh ****" when we had Ricky was KSU. They said they would "hit him in the f'n mouth" and they did just that.

KSU and OU are the only Big 12 teams against whom we have a losing record.
 
Agree with the idea of using fewer formations. We are less predictable that way. GD often gives the play (or you can narrow it down to 2-3 possibilities) by the formation and personel he sends in.
 
Again, thanks for taking the time to answer my curiosities.
hookem.gif
 
We did not throw the ball deep as much as we have in the past either. Colt had a high completion% but he often threw to short route or underneathe WR's. Defenses had more guys closer to the line of scrimage b/c of it, so when we ran the ball it had to help out the defense.

Overall our rush offense wasn't horrible. Better YPC (4.4) than 99 (3.7), 00 (3.9), 01 (4.1), 02 (3.4). Obviously we would like to get it above 5.0. Not shown in the YPC stat is rush TD's. We were really down in rush TD's last year. That has to be improved. Far too often we went to the pass in the redzone and it just wasn't getting it done. We certainly didn't break too many 20+ yard TD runs.

I would not doubt that the coaches think there was nothing at all wrong with the ground game last year and that many of those short passes are what they consider runs.
 
I'm watching the OU game right now. I did not read this thread closely a second time, but I recall from earlier in the week that someone asked how the rush offense looked against OU before and after Dockery.

Dockery went out at ~9:15 left in the 1st quarter. He came back on a later drive, but left again early in the 2nd.

As of the first time he left, we only had 4 rushes per the play by play for 29 yards (7.25 ypc). After Dockery was hurt, we had 25 rushes for 116 yards (4.64 ypc). I think 4 rushes is statistically insufficient, so I'm not sure what conclusions you can draw from this alone.

Note that I am not including the one sack for -15 yards. Also, when I add it up, I get 145 yards to the box scores 157 yards (which includes the sack yardage).

Texas-OU 2006 Play by Play

It was more interesting to look at the rush yardage by quarter. We did not rush the ball much in the 2nd quarter (4 total) and were not effective when we did. Of course we also got no first downs in the 2nd quarter, and it was not just the rushing game.

Qtr Yds YPC
1st 56 7.0
2nd -2 -0.5
3rd 61 6.8
4th 30 3.8

Based on this, it seems a bit more clear that against OU at least Dockery going out was not a big difference maker.

All the rushes I wrote down from the play by play.

Yds Player (Young is Selvin Young in case this is not obvious to everyone)

1st Quarter
6 Charles
7 Young
18 Charles
-2 Charles
Dockery hurt
6 Young
15 Young
-1 Charles
7 Charles

2nd Quarter
-7 Pittman
5 Young
1 Young
-1 McCoy


3rd Quarter
2 Young
12 McCoy
1 Charles
5 McCoy
16 Charles
4 Young
6 McCoy
15 Young
0 Charles


4th Quarter
1 Young
4 Charles
4 McCoy
0 Young
11 Charles
1 Charles
4 Young
5 Charles
 
If you count Finley as a 3rd wideout in a two TE set, don't you have to count him as a fourth wideout in a 3-wide set? That means with a 3 wide set the defense will have to account for 4 receivers plus the RB in pass plays. This means either forcing them to go nickel or putting a lineback on either Finley or the RB, matchups that the Horns should win against almost anybody.
 
Well, if you force them to go nickel you've taken one guy out of the front seven, which should provide an advantage to the running game. If they stay in their base defense you take the easier pass matchups, or run off a LB with the TE and run draws.
 
Reading all these posts has my head spinning.

I played fullback in HS , back in the day, so I guess I am a little biased twoards that type of football. We ran the Winged -T and the Power I. I blocked, ran with the ball, and caught a pass once in awhile. However, we ran other sets at various times based on our opponent's strengths & weaknesses. Obviously, things have changed and the trend is to a heavier emphasis on the passing game.

I've seen many questions and a multitude of responses regarding our lack of a "true fullback". My question to the obviously well informed posters here is what do you define as a fullback?

I agree we have the skilled players that indicate the main thrust of our offense should be the passing attack of Colt and all the great WR's along with J-Mike. However, there are times ie: down close to the goal line, short yardage situations and just as important, times in the 4th quarter when we are protecting a lead, as on T+1 '06, when it is extremely important to be able to effectively run the ball. All too many times last season we were unable to get first downs by running the ball during crucial situations. These are times when you don't want to put the ball up and risk a sack (also with the chance to get blind-sided creating a turnover), an interception, or a clock-stopping incompletion. I maintain that the most effective way to do this is running the I with a fullback lead. All you really need at that position in this offense is a guy who is fairly athletic who can run a little, keep his feet, and be able to sustain a block for a second or so. I partially agree with the previous poster who said Mack and GD don't really try too hard to find someone who fits that bill or at least do'nt want to spend a scholarship on one.
With the way our offense has evolved along with the absence of a power back like Cedric or Ricky they possibily feel the need is diminished. That being said, it is my belief that we need this set in our arsenal and that it is imperative to develop a fullback who is unelfish enough to give his body up as a blocker with no promise of ever running with the ball. I think that a lead fullback gives you more flexibility in terms of running right or left, inside or out, versus two tights or other options. Is my thinking flawed?
I also think that for the most part you need to go with your best players so I prefer a one TE set versus two right now since I think J-Mike is an awesome talent that can be used in tight or split out. An argument could be made for using a second tight end or H-Back sent in motion to lead a single back instead of a fullback but I feel it tips the play or hole to the D, albeit for a split second, as well as employing a less effective blocking angle. Just my opinion.

I would like to see us use split backs with Colt in the shotgun. I understand what Menjou (I think) was saying about not having a strong dive back but I feel Vondrel and even Obie could fill that position. What a guy like Vondrel gives up in size/power is made up for with quicks and elusiveness. What I like about that set is that, not only could you run the veer or the Urban Meyer Utah option, but you could send JC or Vondrel in motion or straight out into a pass route. Remember the wheel rout JC scored on in the Alamo Bowl? I know you take a WR out of the mix but I am not saying use it all the time but there is plenty of versatility to that scheme. You can run a 10 or 11 set out of that and/or split J-Mike out creating a tough size matchup for a DB thus still giving you a 3-wide look. I had a debate with HPSlugga on the use of multiple sets with his thought being it creates more predictability than less. I see his point but what we are'nt considering is that you can put considerable doubt in the minds of the defense. There is so much you "could" do with different plays and wrinkles that it has to put them on their heels and slows their reaction time which is all you really need. He also made the point that there is just so much offense you can add during the limited amount of time the coaches have with them. Point taken but why can't we add one or two plays to each set a week as we go thru the season. I saw Les Koenig employ a bunch of different formations that seem to work against us and they seemed to execute them pretty well.

Also, as I mentioned on another thread, the addition of Sherrod and Chiles gives us even more options especially near the endzone.

Some more random thoughts: I would also like to see us make more of a commitment to the run. It seems GD likes to revert back to the pass too soon (ie: the a&m game early in the 4th after 4 successful runs gave us two 1st downs).....he just seems more comfortable with the pass offense. I can still see some applications of the one back/shotgun set with Colt but if you are going to run the zone read you need to let Colt carry the ball once in awhile. My thoughts on Colt's running ability is that he is much more effective once he gets going after a couple of steps or when he is scrambling out of the pocket as against Tech late in that game. It seems to me the zone read need a QB who is quick and can make that first guy miss or run thru a tackle which is what VY could do all day long. Another point is, Blaine Irby has the prototypical size of a full back or H-Back if you want so that might be the answer there.

I know that all this also has to be predicated upon what the defense's strengths are and who your playing but that is a discussion for another time since this post is already too long.......
 
One of the reasons the running game O struggled near the goal line area after OU was because I believe that was the game Derek Lokey got hurt. The big guy could clear a path as a blocking back. Another reason is that if you line up in that power formation, when everyone knows what is coming, you better have a hammer. No hammer then you better spread them out and have lots of options. I don't know exactly why the running game struggled out away from the goal as bad as it did, but losing Dockery didn't help.
 
We did throw it deep. We did it a ton. That's why Colt had so many yards and TD passes. Why is everyone blocking this out of their memory? It's not always a realistic option though.

Check downs to underneath receivers are very important decisions. Teams we play aren't stupid, they know we can hurt them deep, so a few of them laid back and took away everything over 15 yards. We can't just force it. Remember the first quarter against Baylor? They had 5 guys back and we were forcing it, and it was a disaster. Throwing check downs not only gets us first downs, but it forces the defense to adjust and leave some defenders shallow.

In fact, one of the reasons we lost to tOSU and A&M is that we didn't throw shallow enough. And when you consider that the short passing game is probably Colt's biggest strength, I think we should base the entire offense around it.

RE: the lateral passes to Sweed specifically, those also serve and important purpose or stretching the defense laterally to give us running lanes. It didn't always happen, but as long as it doesn't, we'll have those 5 yards every time, which is fine with me. You can't cram the box, defend the shallow areas and be protected deep. You have to give us something.
 
The obvious answer to why we dropped is that each new opponent had more tape to watch our mickey mouse running scheme. Towards the end of the year we were putting virtually zero pressure on the DE and OLB to be disciplined in reading their keys.

To heck with talking about I formation and a fullback. You can be successful running the ball in any formation as long as you have a sophistacted scheme that keeps defenses guessing. One that never allows them to tee off at the snap and run to a spot where they already know the ball is going.
 
This is all good stuff and I enjoyed reading the posts.

My two cents .........I agree that our running game needs fixing but what bothers me is we (the coaching staff) should have anticipated the problem. Without Vince , predictably, we struggled with the zone read and the single back shotgun.Early on it was clear Colt was not comfortable or effective running the zone read which was a huge part of our offense in '05. I agree with using some variations and adding more runs out of that formation. I also like the idea of using two halfbacks with Colt in the gun not only for the run possibilities but in an effort to get JC out in the passing lanes utilizing his speed against safetys and LB's.

I have always advocated more creativity in the offense, even at the expense of "keeping things simple" and stressing execution. Without a freakish athlete like VY at the controls we needed to add some wrinkles. I have also pleaded with anyone who would listen that a few well timed off-schedule plays (I dislike the term gadget or trick play) would be extremely effective, IMO. But, predictably, we only use them against weak teams. I could list a host of great coaches, college and pro, who regularly employ this tactic. I also subscribe to the theory that defenses are faster and more athletic than they used to be so adjustments need to be made. Hello, is anyone listening out there....Greg can you hear me......please!

In any case I feel this forum helps plant seeds with the powers that be and who knows.....maybe we will be pleasantly surprised.
 
MS-7, You're right about that in a direct sense, however, it does keep the dialogue going does'nt it? The more it is discussed on this site and others the more it is top of mind awareness. Then other sources and forums pick it up and the more it becomes an accepted fact and eventually it might have to be addressed.

Then on the other hand, maybe not. But hey, we do what we can, right?
cool.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Season Confidence Prediction

Rank your win/loss confidence predictions for the season.

Season Confidence
Prediction Thread

100 Day Countdown 2024

Help us count down to game day with your favorite player pics.

100 Day Countdown 2024

Recent Threads

Back
Top