Sounds like no one is stepping up at RB

[CrabHusker]

Where a great OL makes the greatest difference is in 3rd/4th and short. Plays that typically are among the smallest gain YPC-wise.

I think it may be most obvious in those situations, but for many of the lines we're talking about, defenses routinely put 8 or 9 in the box which makes success, much less dominance much harder to achieve.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say there was some of both (good line play and good running backs) during the 40+ years I've been watching Nebraska football. Some of it was great, some not very good at all. Some of the best backs who ever suited up for Nebraska were made to look even better by line play and some of the worst lines in that timeframe were covered up for by great backs. I don't think it's one or the other.

 

[ShortSideOption]

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.

How bored are you to make this argument? It’s true at Nebraska, and it’s true for our current RB coach trying to evaluate recruits In high school. They don’t like film where guys just have massive holes and can run in a straight line and don’t have to make anyone miss. And I have numerous names I could give you from Nebraska. But after reading your responses, you are doing a pretty good dance of “he wasn’t that good” or “nfl doesn’t matter”. Whether it was taking a RB from bad to average, average to good, good to great, our OL at Nebraska has done it on more than one occasion.

This isn’t a concept still being debated, “it all starts up front” is a phrase that’s used for a reason.

 

[MartyHuskerFan]

Arguing with the wind. Some people just wait till you pick a side and then they choose the other side just to have fun arguing. Then they shift a little mid-argument just to save face. I don't know who started this fight. There is no way to look at Husker history and say that a good o-line does not make the RB look better and get better stats. Too what degree, could be debated on a case by case basis. The RBs who played behind poor o-lines and still got good numbers, should impress us more, but watching a RB breeze through a whole and make a few guys miss downfield can be a thrill too. Some of those great RBs during the glory years are truly great RBs, but their numbers would not be as gaudy if they had to start every play with their first contact being 2 yards deep.
Arguments like this get so gobbled up in semantics and diversions, it is difficult to know how to participate.

 

[MadRat]

We don't get the other Joneses without Keith. And to say Keith Jones wasn't very good when he was exceptional is just pitiful. He had a nose for the endzone, hence the nickname 'Endzone Jones'. Tom Osborne openly worried about his size and durability, but the guy showed up and disproved his doubters. He did play beyond college, which is a pretty decent indicator how exceptional real eyes for talent saw him.

 

[goodnterribles]

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.

And a dominant offensive line that made him look better. So again, it really does sound like you're agreeing with the premise.

 

[LarstheRed]

I agree 100% it absolutely starts upfront, but I hope we can agree we had some very good athletes carrying the ball over the years.

I always felt there were plenty of factors that helped us having the successful running game we had for all those years.

-Receivers who were well coached, and took pride in blocking.
-Fullbacks who were committed to being key assets in every blocking scheme.
-A blocking style (Cut) that wasn’t used or executed as well by most teams, and forced defenders to adjust.
-Blocking schemes that also have the OL attacking from various angles, using movement, motion and misdirection.
-A QB who was generally a gifted runner, used fakes, read defenders, and could still throw downfield to put additional pressure on a defense.
-And finally a stable of talented IBs. We may not have signed the top rated recruits, but we generally had several players who were talented, eager and well coached, ready to play on Saturdays.

Some of what we did may have helped those backs shine a little brighter than their skills initially suggests, but if you must have a level of talent to take advantage of the opportunities those factors gave the I-Backs. My high school buddy might have looked great against South Sioux, but nothing would have made him effective, much less excel in the Big 8/12. We had a great system that helped us succeed.

 

[Discoverer27]

Arguing with the wind. Some people just wait till you pick a side and then they choose the other side just to have fun arguing. Then they shift a little mid-argument just to save face. I don't know who started this fight. There is no way to look at Husker history and say that a good o-line does not make the RB look better and get better stats. Too what degree, could be debated on a case by case basis. The RBs who played behind poor o-lines and still got good numbers, should impress us more, but watching a RB breeze through a whole and make a few guys miss downfield can be a thrill too. Some of those great RBs during the glory years are truly great RBs, but their numbers would not be as gaudy if they had to start every play with their first contact being 2 yards deep.
Arguments like this get so gobbled up in semantics and diversions, it is difficult to know how to participate.