• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Sounds like no one is stepping up at RB

ShortSideOption said:
Our OL made a lot of RBs look better than they were. Conversely, guys like Abdullah made our OL better than they were.
Click to expand...

Spot on. Any review of a '80's or '90's Nebraska football game and you'll see running backs routinely make it at least to linebacker level before first contact. Five plus yards before you're even touched makes being a successful running back a whole lot easier. Abdullah (and Burkhead as was also mentioned) had to make sometimes spectacular plays to gain a yard, frequently having first contact well behind the line of scrimmage and often coinciding with being handed the ball.

I'm having a hard time not equating overall running back success with line play.
 

Nemesis said:
So did Rex. I've never seen two guys that so consistently maximized their yardage on every play. They both fought for every last inch every time they touched the ball.
Click to expand...

You bet they did. And building resumes for their next jobs.
 



goodnterribles said:
Keith Jones and Tyreese Knox come to mind in the 80s. They were good RBs but good Lord, the holes they ran through were enormous.
Click to expand...
Neither of those two were good running backs and no one made them look very good, especially not Knox (never had a 500 yard season, YPC inflated by mop up duty)..at least Keith had speed, not much else..that was his reason for glimpses of looking good. He'd have broken long runs for others, just as he did at NU because of that speed.
 
Last edited:
Big Red Shrine said:
^^^This argument is too nuanced and reasoned for this board I fear.

To whit, exhibit A:
Click to expand...
As I said in post 113, a good OL will add marginal difference to the YPC of any back. Clearly, there is great value in even the marginal difference...but fans far overstate it. A great back will shine wherever he lands.

Are you still smarting over your comments about the POB situation? When you act like you know a lot, you've been know to be way off...read the nuance in the posts before making further snide comments, OK?
 
Last edited:
CrabHusker said:
Spot on. Any review of a '80's or '90's Nebraska football game and you'll see running backs routinely make it at least to linebacker level before first contact. Five plus yards before you're even touched makes being a successful running back a whole lot easier. Abdullah (and Burkhead as was also mentioned) had to make sometimes spectacular plays to gain a yard, frequently having first contact well behind the line of scrimmage and often coinciding with being handed the ball.

I'm having a hard time not equating overall running back success with line play.
Click to expand...
It would, if it were remotely close to truth for any back. If it were true, we had a lot of guys really only averaging only a yard or two per carry in our heyday...BS. Our great RB's would've been great anywhere. Our average RB's would've been average. Where a great OL makes the greatest difference is in 3rd/4th and short.
 
Last edited:




CrabHusker said:
Hmm. Our memories of some of those years lines and backs are dramatically different. That is certainly the truth.
Click to expand...
Where a great OL makes the greatest difference is in 3rd/4th and short. Plays that typically are among the smallest gain YPC-wise.
 
Last edited:
I'll prescribe to the philosophy that great runningback performances happen because of team effort. I've had great runningbacks struggle to get their every down yards. They still will rip off great runs occasionally, but the great runs happened more behind greater support.

1. I want good QBs stretching the defense with the threat they can run and sleight of hand occasionally selling the linebackers into freezing. A good QB will foster FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) in a defense.

2. I want great receivers that cannot be left uncovered. I want defenders to respond to their every movement, to make them spend too much time accounting for them. And I want those same receivers to stalk block violently to get defensive players angry at them, to the point every play is a personal statement. Keep that secondary distracted.

3. I want a great offensive line to play a chess match on every conceivable level. I want the defensive line to feel personally responsible for the OL, and the defensive front to pay anytime the OL has a free release. And I want the OL to target the defensive backfield. The OL is the heart & soul of the running game.

4. I want the runningback to make the team look better than it probably is without him. Even if he's the greatest show on Earth, the runningback needs to humblingly credit his OL. And a great runningback knows how to recognize broken fronts, and to capitalize on every broken adjustments 100% of the time. A good running game will and should dependably score every 15 plays.
 
Last edited:



Greatest Fan of All said:
Neither of those two were good running backs and no one made them look very good, especially not Knox (never had a 500 yard season, YPC inflated by mop up duty)..at least Keith had speed, not much else..that was his reason for glimpses of looking good. He'd have broken long runs for others, just as he did at NU because of that speed.
Click to expand...

Wait, aren't you making the point here? You are saying Keith Jones wasn't a good RB, but he averaged almost 8 ypc his senior year and graduated at the time with the 3rd most career yards ever at Nebraska. So we are in agreement?
 
ShortSideOption said:
Did you forget the sarcasm emoji or are you seriously trying to argue that at the University of Nebraska the offensive line never made a RB look better than he was?
Click to expand...
Read post 113...that is exactly what I think. I think even a very good OL rarely makes a running back look better than they are...though I do believe a good OL will allow virtually any RB to gain a marginal amount of additional YPC over that allowed by a poor OL. The YPC is not a solid criteria for either the quality of an RB or an OL. Other things matter as well including the quality of opposition, the offensive scheme in use, and the play calling. These things all work together, but by far the most important thing is the RB's talent level.

Since you never bothered to answer my first question to you, I guess I'll suppose that you are going to tell me that Rozier really shouldn't have won the Heisman...that is what you seem to be saying. Evidently, Ahman Green was over-rated too because our great OL's made him look so good. LP wasn't talented either...his NFL experience exposed that, right? I call BS. Obviously, every human who follows football would rather have a good OL rather than a poorer one, and that will benefit every RB on the team and give them greater YPC. But they don't make a good RB look like a great one, or a bad one look good.

If you want to answer my question and provide some substance rather than just being glib, please do so and we can discuss it further.
 
Last edited:

goodnterribles said:
Wait, aren't you making the point here? You are saying Keith Jones wasn't a good RB, but he averaged almost 8 ypc his senior year and graduated at the time with the 3rd most career yards ever at Nebraska. So we are in agreement?
Click to expand...
Statistics...not meaningless, but not proof of much either. If you watched KJ and thought you were watching a really good RB, then you are easily fooled. I watched KJ and thought he was a very average RB but was very fast, in a great scheme, with a master play-caller, and that translates to big YPC when you have greater talent than the opposition almost every week.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top