Is "run the damn ball" obsolete?

[gizmo]

The good old days of ground and pound seem to be fading away. This saddens and concerns me.

[Rockbear99]

its an evolving game. You have to be able to adapt when the Defense takes one phase of the game away. I am so glad that we are able to do that and pull these games out.

[Bisonator98]

Not obsolete, just doesn't match this teams style and players apparently. Every team is a little different and you need to adjust your style of play accordingly. I will say I've been a bit disappointed with the Oline this year. It was supposedly one our best coming into the season but I'm not seeing that. Was that all just talk, not living up to the hype or have injuries hindered their cohesiveness? Perhaps the new blocking schemes are not being executed properly?? Jury is still out I guess.

[gizmo]

The "pull these games out" is the part that concerns me.

[TransAmBison]

When you have a potential 2nd round NFL QB, it would not make sense to use him...especially against a team like UNI that is very good at defending against the run. And it isn't like we have just Wentz...we have a very good group of receivers. I can't think of a time we had three or more receivers this good at one time. We've had two a number of times...but three with this much talent...gotta use them. And for the record, I love the ground game...

[SDbison]

We have an NFL caliber QB and some really good receivers and some posters here want to pound the ball on the ground even if it's not working........lol.

[HerdBot]

If the run isn't working, that's when you throw the ball. If you can't you're screwed. But even though we didn't run the ball well, just by sticking with it opened up the passing game big time. And that's why we won the game and dominated the TOP.

[thundarsdaddy]

When you have a potential 2nd round NFL QB, it would not make sense to use him...especially against a team like UNI that is very good at defending against the run. And it isn't like we have just Wentz...we have a very good group of receivers. I can't think of a time we had three or more receivers this good at one time. We've had two a number of times...but three with this much talent...gotta use them. And for the record, I love the ground game...

And your lady wears a leather football helmet!!!!!

Oh...and....well said!!!

[td577]

No. Now NDSU has to keep doing it for two reasons. One is if it works, it works. Secondly, even if it doesn't show up in the stats column as being incredibly successful, coupled with everyone thinking they will do, they have to do it to keep defenses honest. I think the passing game should be respected enough now that I wouldn't mind seeing them spreading it out and running more out of 3 and 4 receiver set rather than just the power formations. I do think they have to start pushing it out a little more and run more off tackle, as well. We are facing defenses completely selling out to take away the run. That will loosen up as Wentz and company continue to destroy them in the passing game. We can flip the script and use the passing game to set up the running game a little more, if that is what our opponents want.

[SDbison]

No. Now NDSU has to keep doing it for two reasons. One is if it works, it works. Secondly, even if it doesn't show up in the stats column as being incredibly successful, coupled with everyone thinking they will do, they have to do it to keep defenses honest. I think the passing game should be respected enough now that I wouldn't mind seeing them spreading it out and running more out of 3 and 4 receiver set rather than just the power formations. I do think they have to start pushing it out a little more and run more off tackle, as well. We are facing defenses completely selling out to take away the run. That will loosen up as Wentz and company continue to destroy them in the passing game. We can flip the script and use the passing game to set up the running game a little more, if that is what our opponents want.
^^^^^^^ This exactly! If the Bison had gone to the passing game earlier (on downs not forced to pass) the offense would have scored much more in the first half.

[bisonaudit]

Through the first 5 games we're 60/40 run this season. Last season it was 65/35. Interestingly, the total rushing attempts so far this season are only 2 fewer than last year (225 v. 227). We've run 25 more plays (5 more per game) than we did last year up to this point.

Compared to Jensen's senior season the first five games were 64/36 run. Tempo basically split the difference, 14 more plays than '14 but 11 fewer than '15.

So, yeah, we're throwing it somewhat more than the past few seasons, but not by a drastic amount, and given the skills of the QB the emergence of a third receiver and that it seems like we're still trying find a feature back let alone the 2 headed monster of '13 and years prior, it would probably be OC malpractice not too.

[gumby013]

I think the big difference this year is we are running out of the shotgun a lot more.

[No_Skill]

I know the stats say that our yards per carry aren't down drastically from years past, but it just feels like we haven't broken the game open with the run. What is our longest run from scrimmage this year 20-30 yards? Last year Crockett had a 68 yard TD in the first game.

[EC8CH]

No, concerns the offense is changing it's identity are overblown.

[Bisonator98]

I know the stats say that our yards per carry aren't down drastically from years past, but it just feels like we haven't broken the game open with the run. What is our longest run from scrimmage this year 20-30 yards? Last year Crockett had a 68 yard TD in the first game.

Actually 80! Plus Morlock had a 66 yarder! Or was Morlocks a pass play?

[Professor Chaos]

One trait that is shared by all great (non-triple option) offenses is versatility. NDSU's offense has shown they can beat teams with the run and teams are still respecting the hell out of NDSU's run game even though it hasn't been as potent this year as it has been in years past. NDSU is also showing teams it can beat them with the pass.

I crunched some 2nd half numbers from this UNI game and it's pretty easy to see why they did what they did. Wentz was terrific in the 2nd half when he made 28 of his 40 pass attempts. They did still run the ball 21 times in the 2nd half and considering the last 10 offensive plays were all passes (which was necessary) they were actually running the ball more than throwing it in the 2nd half before that last drive.

However, for the half the offense had 343 yards on 49 plays (that's 7 yards per play). Wentz was 19-28 for 251 yards (9 yards per pass attempt) with 3 TDs and 1 INT. On 3rd and 4th down he was 8-9 for 110 yards and 2 TDs (with 7 of those completions going for 1st downs). Even in the running game they had 92 yards rushing (although at only 4.4 yards per rush). Keep in mind all these numbers are 2nd half only.

Overall that was a herculean offensive effort in the 2nd half against one of the best defenses in the FCS.

[Mr Meaty]

If the run isn't working, that's when you throw the ball. If you can't you're screwed. But even though we didn't run the ball well, just by sticking with it opened up the passing game big time. And that's why we won the game and dominated the TOP.

We dominated TOP because they had scoring drives of 13 seconds, 1:37, 1:09 and 3:01. That are some fast scores. Yes I know we had some quick ones as well.

[bisonaudit]

Our 6 min plus drive in the 3rd quarter that resulted in zero points may also have had something to do with the TOP result.

[HerdBot]

We dominated TOP because they had scoring drives of 13 seconds, 1:37, 1:09 and 3:01. That are some fast scores. Yes I know we had some quick ones as well.

True but my point was more that we could throw the ball because we did a good job of sticking with thr run and making them respect it, even though it wasn't working.

[Bison 4 Life]

True but my point was more that we could throw the ball because we did a good job of sticking with thr run and making them respect it, even though it wasn't working.

you say "wasn't working" but we managed to get 141 yds on the ground despite having 1 injured veteran, one true freshman, and them selling out a lot on the run.

[stevdock]

Along with what you guys are saying, I feel that Carson throwing the ball is as safe as handing off to the back in most situations. Take the UND game for example: They were giving us a 7-10 yard cushion on the outside. That is a simple out pattern for automatic yards. If teams are consistently going to try and take away the run game first (and historically they should), well we have a QB that can easily make them pay for that. So I think this has more to do with Carson running the show and the trust the whole team has put in him to call the right play at the right time and to get the ball to the right person at the right time.

[ZHerd]

you say "wasn't working" but we managed to get 141 yds on the ground despite having 1 injured veteran, one true freshman, and them selling out a lot on the run.

Aside from opening up the passing game you could somewhat question the effectiveness of the ground game. Of that 141 yards Bruce Anderson had 40 averaging 5.7 a pop (Very good against a UNI defense), but Wentz, Frazier, and Morlock were all under 4 ypc (not exactly awesome). Some of those runs were important 1st downs but definitely not a game breaking performance. Wentz's passing was definitely the difference maker on Sat. As a side note, some UNI fans thought he was overrated because his performance in last year's debacle. Well, they just got Wentzed

[FrozenTech]

Along with what you guys are saying, I feel that Carson throwing the ball is as safe as handing off to the back in most situations. Take the UND game for example: They were giving us a 7-10 yard cushion on the outside. That is a simple out pattern for automatic yards. If teams are consistently going to try and take away the run game first (and historically they should), well we have a QB that can easily make them pay for that. So I think this has more to do with Carson running the show and the trust the whole team has put in him to call the right play at the right time and to get the ball to the right person at the right time.

I think the biggest issue is that we're seeing a lot more Spread, a lot earlier then we normally run. Carson is taking the ball under center, but we're not running the I and then working play action off of that, really at all.

And thats perhaps one of the most noticable changes

[Herd]

I think when we get in the playoff vs a CAA or SL, BSC, or Socon, or Ovalley opponent, you'll see lots of ground and pound. In the MValley, you can't do that exclusively, you have to be balanced.

[gizmo]

But, it seems like the Bison seldom score with a running play except for when Wentz runs it. The breakaway TD run by a running back is but a distant memory, it seems. We usually rely on short passes to get first downs. In other words, this offense has become almost 100% reliant on the QB. IMO, this all relates to the O line. Watch the last series the Bison O had against UNI. Wentz was under constant pressure even though UNI did not blitz. It was only by the outstanding play of Wentz and his receivers that the Bison pulled off the win. It's time for the O line to get their act together!

[Bison03]

I would hate to see what the threads on here would say if we weren't 4-1 and scoring 26 points per game!!!

[Bison 4 Life]

I would hate to see what the threads on here would say if we weren't 4-1 and scoring 26 points per game!!!

Scoring 34.4 ppg

[CAS4127]

I think when we get in the playoff vs a CAA or SL, BSC, or Socon, or Ovalley opponent, you'll see lots of ground and pound. In the MValley, you can't do that exclusively, you have to be balanced.

Not necessarily you, but many BVers were saying during the OOC portion of our season that we would see more of our running game and a bigger playbook in conference play. I haven't noticed one bit of change.

Also, in years past, we were pretty much balanced but sometimes actually more rushing yards than passing yards. Did we learn at Montana that our Oline was not what we thought is was coming into the season and now we are forced to rely on the pass rather than a strong running game. Eventually other teams/coaches are going to figure out we aren't that strong of a running team and not stack the box. We will then see what we are truly made of. Add in shitty weather/playing conditions and things will get interesting in a hurry.

[TransAmBison]

Not necessarily you, but many BVers were saying during the OOC portion of our season that we would see more of our running game and a bigger playbook in conference play. I haven't noticed one bit of change.

Also, in years past, we were pretty much balanced but sometimes actually more rushing yards than passing yards. Did we learn at Montana that our Oline was not what we thought is was coming into the season and now we are forced to rely on the pass rather than a strong running game. Eventually other teams/coaches are going to figure out we aren't that strong of a running team and not stack the box. We will then see what we are truly made of. Add in shitty weather/playing conditions and things will get interesting in a hurry.
We normally do have a lot harder time running the ball against UNI than pretty much anyone else. Would you not agree with this?

[CAS4127]

We normally do have a lot harder time running the ball against UNI than pretty much anyone else. Would you not agree with this?

True, but we haven't really run the ball effectively/consistently well against anyone yet this year. I could see us doing so against USD ....... but it is USD after all.

[NDSUstudent]

I think UNI figured that out, they weren't selling out the entire game against the run. They were forcing Carson into throwing into some tight windows. Honestly as long as our receivers/Carson can stay healthy, I think Wentz will torch any defense we come across. He is that good.

I am not sure what is wrong with the running game, I think it is a combo of OL and RB talent. I would love to see the staff feed Bruce more, he is playing better each week and to be honest he is much more likely to break a big run in my opinion.

[17>1]

True, but we haven't really run the ball effectively/consistently well against anyone yet this year. I could see us doing so against USD ....... but it is USD after all.

You pretty much just answered any doubts or concerns you may have had about the run game. We've played a couple of tough defenses that stacked the box and forced us to pass a bit more. Consider the opponents before always questioning the Bison first.

[Bison 4 Life]

Am I looking at different stats than everyone else?

We're rushing 198.4 ypg.

[td577]

Not necessarily you, but many BVers were saying during the OOC portion of our season that we would see more of our running game and a bigger playbook in conference play. I haven't noticed one bit of change.

Also, in years past, we were pretty much balanced but sometimes actually more rushing yards than passing yards. Did we learn at Montana that our Oline was not what we thought is was coming into the season and now we are forced to rely on the pass rather than a strong running game. Eventually other teams/coaches are going to figure out we aren't that strong of a running team and not stack the box. We will then see what we are truly made of. Add in shitty weather/playing conditions and things will get interesting in a hurry.

What games have you been watching? 86 carries and almost 350 yards in 2 conference games for about 4 YPC. 153 plays for a total of almost 900 yards. Lets not forget the 59 points and 2 wins. This was against 2 top 10 opponents. Maybe we aren't giving our opponents enough credit for spending the past 5 years trying to beat the Bison program.

I, too, would like to see some more rhythm and continuity, but to say they aren't effective isn't exactly right either. During the game and when I watched it again in the crappy recording I had, in the second half, UNI LBers had no clue where they were supposed to go. They were either a half step behind reacting to the run or 2 steps behind trying to catch up to wherever they were supposed to cover on passing plays. The Bison did a much better job of slipping into the seams of the zone defense when passing and I thought Anderson was slamming the line hard and making the LBers pay for trying to toe the line. You played LBer. Tell me UNI LBers, as a whole, looked all that comfortable out there.

[CAS4127]

Am I looking at different stats than everyone else?

We're rushing 198.4 ypg.


What games have you been watching? 86 carries and almost 350 yards in 2 conference games for about 4 YPC. 153 plays for a total of almost 900 yards. Lets not forget the 59 points and 2 wins. This was against 2 top 10 opponents. Maybe we aren't giving our opponents enough credit for spending the past 5 years trying to beat the Bison program.

I, too, would like to see some more rhythm and continuity, but to say they aren't effective isn't exactly right either. During the game and when I watched it again in the crappy recording I had, in the second half, UNI LBers had no clue where they were supposed to go. They were either a half step behind reacting to the run or 2 steps behind trying to catch up to wherever they were supposed to cover on passing plays. The Bison did a much better job of slipping into the seams of the zone defense when passing and I thought Anderson was slamming the line hard and making the LBers pay for trying to toe the line. You played LBer. Tell me UNI LBers, as a whole, looked all that comfortable out there.

BFL, I feel like a lot of those yards came when the game was in hand, and I don't like that our QB is our leading rusher.

57: Maybe I just don't like the WAY we run the ball now compared to out of the pro/West coast style of offense--IDK.

Also, I don't like that I would feel better about a pass play than a run play if we absolutely needed 2 yards.

Just not my style of football I guess.

I was not focused on UNI's LB's at all, and never re-watch a game, but I'll take your word for it.

[Mr. Burgundy]

BFL, I feel like a lot of those yards came when the game was in hand, and I don't like that our QB is our leading rusher.

57: Maybe I just don't like the WAY we run the ball now compared to out of the pro/West coast style of offense--IDK.

Also, I don't like that I would feel better about a pass play than a run play if we absolutely needed 2 yards.

Just not my style of football I guess.

I was not focused on UNI's LB's at all, and never re-watch a game, but I'll take your word for it.

What would you like to see? What could NDSU do next week to have an "identity" that you keep talking about week after week? Maybe that is what I am confused by. HOnestly, I am fairly shocked we are talking about an offensive problem at this point. I could list a few schools that would love our offensive problems.

[17>1]

BFL, I feel like a lot of those yards came when the game was in hand, and I don't like that our QB is our leading rusher.

57: Maybe I just don't like the WAY we run the ball now compared to out of the pro/West coast style of offense--IDK.

Also, I don't like that I would feel better about a pass play than a run play if we absolutely needed 2 yards.

Just not my style of football I guess.

I was not focused on UNI's LB's at all, and never re-watch a game, but I'll take your word for it.

CAS, I get what you're saying, and I'll admit that I've wondered where that power run game, chew up clock, 4 yards and a cloud of dust, has been. But like has been mentioned, Valley teams and a lot of defenses are maybe starting to figure out a way to slow it down and make it less effective. This is solid discussion and we should all keep it going as the season progresses, but I think we'll see some of the old school stuff you like when we get USD, ISU-B, MO St, etc.

[td577]

BFL, I feel like a lot of those yards came when the game was in hand, and I don't like that our QB is our leading rusher.

57: Maybe I just don't like the WAY we run the ball now compared to out of the pro/West coast style of offense--IDK.

Also, I don't like that I would feel better about a pass play than a run play if we absolutely needed 2 yards.

Just not my style of football I guess.

I was not focused on UNI's LB's at all, and never re-watch a game, but I'll take your word for it.

It has been a different style, so far. We haven't seen where we could run off 6 or 7 running plays in a row and demoralize a team. I do think teams are more cognizant of not letting that happen and would rather take their chances making the Bison pass. Maybe we won't see our O-line all healthy at one time or maybe opponents will rather see Wentz take them apart in the air, but the running game will continue to get better. Especially with Bruce A. getting more involved.

[CAS4127]

What would you like to see? What could NDSU do next week to have an "identity" that you keep talking about week after week? Maybe that is what I am confused by. HOnestly, I am fairly shocked we are talking about an offensive problem at this point. I could list a few schools that would love our offensive problems.

The more I think about it, the more I believe it is the below for me. So perhaps it's not the rushing results, but the way we get them. To me, read option feels gimicky. I've never been a fan of "trick" type plays, EVER, and that's the feeling I get watching the read option being run, whether its us or some other team. I'd rather let everyone else run it, with us being different.



Maybe I just don't like the WAY we run the ball now compared to out of the pro/West coast style of offense--IDK.

Also, I don't like that I would feel better about a pass play than a run play if we absolutely needed 2 yards.

Just not my style of football I guess.

[HerdBot]

you say "wasn't working" but we managed to get 141 yds on the ground despite having 1 injured veteran, one true freshman, and them selling out a lot on the run.

Good point. We had plenty success running, just not as much with our running backs and didn't have many long runs. That's ok if we have a QB that can shred the defense

[CaBisonFan]

Seems like we're doing what we have to do, given the personnel that we have.

[Bison 4 Life]

Good point. We had plenty success running, just not as much with our running backs and didn't have many long runs. That's ok if we have a QB that can shred the defense

To me, it appears, a means to an end. If they want to get on the run that much, then go ahead, Our QB gets hit very rarely, and will absolutely cut a bitch through the air.

If they ever loosen up, I think our guys will get through.

[ZHerd]

The more I think about it, the more I believe it is the below for me. So perhaps it's not the rushing results, but the way we get them. To me, read option feels gimicky. I've never been a fan of "trick" type plays, EVER, and that's the feeling I get watching the read option being run, whether its us or some other team. I'd rather let everyone else run it, with us being different.

With Dunn and Morlock dinged up, hopefully all carries will be to the two headed Bruce Anderson/King Frazier monster and you may get to see more of what we have grown accustomed to with the dominating ground game

[td577]

What would you like to see? What could NDSU do next week to have an "identity" that you keep talking about week after week? Maybe that is what I am confused by. HOnestly, I am fairly shocked we are talking about an offensive problem at this point. I could list a few schools that would love our offensive problems.

CAS can speak for himself, but I think I get where he is coming from because I feel somewhat the same way, just not as extreme. The Bison have established a profile over many years of being able to to churn out 4 yards at a time at will. Our power running game hasn't been as consistent as it has been in the past, so our offense is looking a lot more like the teams we play. Sure we are moving the ball, but not the wearing down, take over the second half with 6 minute run only point producing drives. We are averaging 4 yards a carry, but I don't feel as confident about 3rd and 2 running the ball as I have in the past couple of years. If we see defenses like UNI where they sell out on short yardage plays, that TE/FB pass in the flat will be there all day, but that hasn't been Bison football so it is taking some getting used to.

I prefer smash mouth football for 60 minutes. Like CAS, I would be more comfortable with knowing you can get 3 yards on the ground, at will. I personally could live with them passing 90% of the time if that was what the defense is giving them, but there is a lot of comfort knowing you have the grind game in your back pocket any time you want to go to it. We haven't seen that yet. Opposing teams are respecting the run because they know we will run and if they give in too much we will run them over. It has been a tradition it didn't matter if they sold out against the run, we could still grind out 3.5 yards a carry the entire game. There is a slight difference there. Shit, the Bison way has been you could put the play in the videoboard and we will simply out execute you into 1st downs every three plays on the ground. It could be other teams have finally found ways to scheme against it or we just haven't gotten everything lined up yet. Then the identity becomes the Bison run whatever play they want to, not because they have to.

[bisonhp330]

With Dunn and Morlock dinged up, hopefully all carries will be to the two headed Bruce Anderson/King Frazier monster and you may get to see more of what we have grown accustomed to with the dominating ground game

I liked Darious Anderson in the mix- he picked his way for a good run- used the blocks and read the field. Got some quicks

[bisonaudit]

But, it seems like the Bison seldom score with a running play except for when Wentz runs it. The breakaway TD run by a running back is but a distant memory, it seems. We usually rely on short passes to get first downs. In other words, this offense has become almost 100% reliant on the QB. IMO, this all relates to the O line. Watch the last series the Bison O had against UNI. Wentz was under constant pressure even though UNI did not blitz. It was only by the outstanding play of Wentz and his receivers that the Bison pulled off the win. It's time for the O line to get their act together!

I'm not sure what breakaway rushing TDs have to do with the O-line. Seems like they're probably more about whether or not the tailback can get away from the defensive secondary.

[Bisonator98]

BFL, I feel like a lot of those yards came when the game was in hand, and I don't like that our QB is our leading rusher.

57: Maybe I just don't like the WAY we run the ball now compared to out of the pro/West coast style of offense--IDK.

Also, I don't like that I would feel better about a pass play than a run play if we absolutely needed 2 yards.

Just not my style of football I guess.

I was not focused on UNI's LB's at all, and never re-watch a game, but I'll take your word for it.

I agree with you on the offense. I'm not a fan of read option either and prefer a pro style west coast offense. I'm not sure why coach P seems to prefer the read option.

[Bison 4 Life]

I agree with you on the offense. I'm not a fan of read option either and prefer a pro style west coast offense. I'm not sure why coach P seems to prefer the read option.

because we have a QB with that skill set.

[bisonhp330]

But, it seems like the Bison seldom score with a running play except for when Wentz runs it. The breakaway TD run by a running back is but a distant memory, it seems. We usually rely on short passes to get first downs. In other words, this offense has become almost 100% reliant on the QB. IMO, this all relates to the O line. Watch the last series the Bison O had against UNI. Wentz was under constant pressure even though UNI did not blitz. It was only by the outstanding play of Wentz and his receivers that the Bison pulled off the win. It's time for the O line to get their act together!

Wentz stepped up in the pocket on one play and rolled out of the pocket- if anything the receivers need to get separation so the throw can get off. They did have pressure- but overall the OLine looked damn good on pass sets. Look at the wabbit game- Wentz had all day long in the pocket and still had time to throw. Your statement that the O-Line is to blame for the 'breakaway TD being a distant memory' shows what little understanding you have about how the game works.

[natstar1]

I agree with you on the offense. I'm not a fan of read option either and prefer a pro style west coast offense. I'm not sure why coach P seems to prefer the read option.

why does every NBA team run pick n roll? it is really hard to defend

[tolnabison]

Talent level at RB has been pretty high here in the D1 era: Steffes, Roehl, Paschall, McNorton, Ojuri, and Crockett. I am a firm believer in giving a guy the ball 20+ times a game like we did with the guys I previously mentioned, but the truth is we don't have that guy this year. I am not against the 4 RB system we are doing this year. The statistics don't lie and the results don't lie. Wins are wins no matter how they come. There have been many running plays this year I feel an RB from the past would have been through the hole, where this year it is closing faster. Talent level might not be as high as it is in the past. I think we have the talent there, I think many of us could see the difference between Bruce and King on Saturday. King has a role, but Bruce is the future.

[scottietohottie]

Yeah looks to me like the fbs transfer isn't a feature back, two backs are banged up and you can't really expect a true freshman to carry the ball 20 times a game. It's not obsolete but it's definitely different then what Bison fans are used too. It doesn't help the line is banged up but King missed some holes Saturday and that was a little frustrating and I still can't get over Bruce losing the ball to sdsu on his nice run. Like Phil said he needs more time with Kramer. Still have time maybe the next great Bison will still emerge this year.

[TBone]

who are the really good receivers

[Snowgoose]

because we have a QB with that skill set.

Our QB is a pro style QB just like Andrew Luck. Luck did great in the west coast offense. Alabama and Stanford seem to great with our offense. The read option in a gimmick offense that is not in the pros but rather only in the college. There is a reason for that and it is because NFL teams value their QB's too much to get them hurt.

Sorry, but I don't like our current run game either and I agree with CAS. It has all to do with the read option rather than our Oline. Every defense in the nation is setup to compete agains the read option as more college teams have gone that route with lighter LB's. This is part of the reason our smash mouth style has been successful.

I am in no way advocating we run the ball more, but it is how we are running the ball that I want changed back to the way we used to dominate.

[MAKBison]

I know the stats say that our yards per carry aren't down drastically from years past, but it just feels like we haven't broken the game open with the run. What is our longest run from scrimmage this year 20-30 yards? Last year Crockett had a 68 yard TD in the first game.


That's because our opponents are gaming our traditional power run. Watch uni.... as soon as the lbs see a guard even think about pulling they all immediately crushed the middle. Thus we started giving different looks and it totally confused uni.....if we don't fumble and throw a pick we have 14 more points.

Our line is fine. Play calling fine. Other than a blown timeout I really do not see what your all bitching about

[Snowgoose]

The other thing that worries me and I have said this for half a decade is tell me when Michigan, Minnesota, and Nebraska started really sucking. It all corresponds to when they decided to go to a spread/read option style of offense. Minnesota has always stunk but they were much better when they ran a power offense than when the read option was brought to town by Brewster. In the Midwest it is just easier to have big offensive lineman that can push a pile and the skilled players fit this characteristic as well. Read option long term will not be successful. Since we have an NFL QB any offense is going to be successful.

[td577]

Yeah looks to me like the fbs transfer isn't a feature back, two backs are banged up and you can't really expect a true freshman to carry the ball 20 times a game. It's not obsolete but it's definitely different then what Bison fans are used too. It doesn't help the line is banged up but King missed some holes Saturday and that was a little frustrating and I still can't get over Bruce losing the ball to sdsu on his nice run. Like Phil said he needs more time with Kramer. Still have time maybe the next great Bison will still emerge this year.

King is a bowling ball. You roll him exactly where you want him to go and he will bounce off guys to gain some yardage. He isn't a dynamic, cut back type runner who will run to open space. He runs the play exactly like it is in the playbook and it is the responsibility of the guys in front of him to keep the line clear. His strength is he isn't easy to bring down and as long as the same line as in the playbook is relatively clear, he will stay on getting as many yards until a couple of guys bring him down. There is a lot of value in that as a coaching staff because they spend the time drawing up the plays to work a certain way and if they don't, it isn't King's fault, it is the other 50 variables going on. You just have to be very specific if you want him hitting a different hole on a given play.

Bruce is the next big thing. He is that dynamic, cut back runner who will find open lanes and make guys miss. As the game slows down for him, he will start hitting some home runs. He is going to be the Bison back getting long TD runs without even being touched. While he hasn't broken one really long yet, he is showing flashes 5 games into his career why Coach K thinks he is going to be something special. I am not too worried about ball security. It is a pretty big jump going from high schoolers yanking at and punching at a ball and college athletes doing the same. Like you said, Kramer will help and getting some knocked out will get him caught up pretty quick. High, tight, and 5 points of pressure. This is the level where you learn it doesn't matter what you can do, it matters where the ball is in relationship to lines of gain and the goal line and nothing matters if the ball isn't with you.

I don't know what to think about Dunn yet. I think he will be a home run hitter but in a way where you have to get him on the edge. He seems to me like that Sproles type who could dominate third downs. I was hoping to see Darius Anderson play in the slot this year. The problem is there are so many capable receivers, there hasn't been any chance for him to get anywhere on the field. When Morlock is 100%, you can put him anywhere and the defense absolutely has to account for him.

I think the RBs are starting to gain an identity within the system and will be used according to their strengths. Other than Frazier, they all bring enough versatility you can't lock into one specific outcome. With Frazier, you get what you get based on execution. I think over the rest of the season, you will see the game within the game emerge. I do think there might be the issue of not having enough plays in any given game to see any one of them explode individually, but collectively you will see more exciting runs.

[Professor Chaos]

The other thing that worries me and I have said this for half a decade is tell me when Michigan, Minnesota, and Nebraska started really sucking. It all corresponds to when they decided to go to a spread/read option style of offense. Minnesota has always stunk but they were much better when they ran a power offense than when the read option was brought to town by Brewster. In the Midwest it is just easier to have big offensive lineman that can push a pile and the skilled players fit this characteristic as well. Read option long term will not be successful. Since we have an NFL QB any offense is going to be successful.
Did you ever watch Nebraska in their mid 90s heyday? They had a guy named Tommy Frazier who won 2 national championships for them and in his career ran the ball 350 times for 2000 yards as an option QB. In 1997 when they won their last title the QB Scott Frost threw for 5 TDs and ran for 19. What started the downfall of Nebraska was when they hired Bill Callahan in the mid 2000s to implement his west coast quick passing offense on a team that ran the option for years under Osborne and Solich and threw the ball very little. Nebraska built a dynasy based on option football. Beyond that, the spread offense is a completely different philosophy from the read option yet you seem to be using them interchangeably. Read option can be incorporated into the spread but the read option the Bison are running this year is not anywhere near a spread offense.

Oh, and Minnesota started sucking around the time the forward pass was invented.

[MAKBison]

CAS can speak for himself, but I think I get where he is coming from because I feel somewhat the same way, just not as extreme. The Bison have established a profile over many years of being able to to churn out 4 yards at a time at will. Our power running game hasn't been as consistent as it has been in the past, so our offense is looking a lot more like the teams we play. Sure we are moving the ball, but not the wearing down, take over the second half with 6 minute run only point producing drives. We are averaging 4 yards a carry, but I don't feel as confident about 3rd and 2 running the ball as I have in the past couple of years. If we see defenses like UNI where they sell out on short yardage plays, that TE/FB pass in the flat will be there all day, but that hasn't been Bison football so it is taking some getting used to.

I prefer smash mouth football for 60 minutes. Like CAS, I would be more comfortable with knowing you can get 3 yards on the ground, at will. I personally could live with them passing 90% of the time if that was what the defense is giving them, but there is a lot of comfort knowing you have the grind game in your back pocket any time you want to go to it. We haven't seen that yet. Opposing teams are respecting the run because they know we will run and if they give in too much we will run them over. It has been a tradition it didn't matter if they sold out against the run, we could still grind out 3.5 yards a carry the entire game. There is a slight difference there. Shit, the Bison way has been you could put the play in the videoboard and we will simply out execute you into 1st downs every three plays on the ground. It could be other teams have finally found ways to scheme against it or we just haven't gotten everything lined up yet. Then the identity becomes the Bison run whatever play they want to, not because they have to.

Agree,..I gotta think teams are recruiting players that match up to stop the run. Its been 4 years teams are going to start figuring things out. My point being, If teams are doing evening they can to stop the run, our production should will slip. Lucky for us we can do other things. Assuming stick is the real dea,l teams will be chasing us for some time.

[MAKBison]

When teams stop stacking the box, you'll see your 8 yrds and a cloud of dust

[Snowgoose]

[QUOTE=Professor Chaos;1049038]Did you ever watch Nebraska in their mid 90s heyday? They had a guy named Tommy Frazier who won 2 national championships for them and in his career ran the ball 350 times for 2000 yards as an option QB. In 1997 when they won their last title the QB Scott Frost threw for 5 TDs and ran for 19. What started the downfall of Nebraska was when they hired Bill Callahan in the early 2000s to implement his west coast quick passing offense on a team that ran the option for years under Osborne and Solich and threw the ball very little. Nebraska built a dynasy based on option football. Beyond that, the spread offense is a completely different philosophy from the read option yet you seem to be using them interchangeably.

I understand what they did as we did the same thing here for decades and it was more of the power run option rather than the spread/read option that is prevalent in college football today. Callahan's offense was not a true west coast offense as it seemed like it was more of a spread offense. The true west coast (which is truly hardly run anymore 49ers version) was under center a lot. I would actually prefer if we did more of a pistol as it would at least be more similar to the I-formation we have used for the past about 15 years. At least we would then be more going between the tackles rather than running more of our offensive run plays sideways. It also appears like out play action isn't working quite as well, which it should if there are 8 in the box.

[BisoninNWMN]

I miss seeing the power running game, it's stI'll there but not used as much.

Bison are a whisker away from being 5-0, so I'm don't going to complain to hard.

It is enjoyable to watch a future NFL QB lead this team!!!



GO BISON

[bisonhp330]

now CAS i know its a different breed......but the veer ran off the similar option premise as the read option- Good ol veer was down the line Give,keep,pitch...........Zone blocking (different scheme in the read block but its all about the defense flow and show how its blocked) .....all kinds of success while you were there and many years before and after. I realize the game has changed.....Just sayin

[td577]

The other thing that worries me and I have said this for half a decade is tell me when Michigan, Minnesota, and Nebraska started really sucking. It all corresponds to when they decided to go to a spread/read option style of offense. Minnesota has always stunk but they were much better when they ran a power offense than when the read option was brought to town by Brewster. In the Midwest it is just easier to have big offensive lineman that can push a pile and the skilled players fit this characteristic as well. Read option long term will not be successful. Since we have an NFL QB any offense is going to be successful.

I don't think NDSU has any plans to implement the read option as a full time offense any time soon. They use it sparingly. A little more than 5 times against UNI out of 80 plays. They call it when the defense is giving it to them. 5, 6, 5, 6, and 3. Those are the yards on those plays where Carson kept it. Now you pull a LBer back to the LOS for a few plays when they see the same formation. When the LBer drops out again, run it with CW. If it were not gaining positive yards and successfully changing defensive tendencies, I do think this coaching staff would throw it out. Plus, in a game like UNI, Wentz was getting hit less violently on those plays then in the pocket. The read option turns the defense into a one on one matchup and CW has enough moves to beat LBers one on one. There is a reason the NFL doesn't have too many guys use it much because the one on one matchups almost always favor the defenders against a QB. SF barely runs it anymore because Kaepernick hands off and bails because he is tired of getting smoked on every play.

The problem with those teams you mentioned sucking with the read option is their QBs weren't passers first. They were recruiting run first QBs who could sometimes pass. Defenses didn't respect their passing ability and absolutely wanted them to pass while the teams were dead set on establishing the read option running. Wentz is a passer who can run. I think it goes back to NDSU calls it when they see an opening and/or wants the defense to reset.

[NDSUstudent]

I think there is some confusion here with the spread offense and the read option. They aren't the same thing.

The spread is an offensive philosophy, you can pass heavy(Mike Leach) or run heavy(WVU or Rich Rod) using it. The read option is just a play where the QB reads the defense, it is not a gimmick, it is really just basic math and it can be run out of a number of formations. It is something that is found in all levels of football and if you have the right QB it is very effective. Seriously, Urban Meyer has killed defenses with the read option throughout his career.

The spread isn't a gimmick either but that is a whole different thing than what we do. It is more about spreading the defense out and having them defend sideline to sideline.

[td577]

Did you ever watch Nebraska in their mid 90s heyday? They had a guy named Tommy Frazier who won 2 national championships for them and in his career ran the ball 350 times for 2000 yards as an option QB. In 1997 when they won their last title the QB Scott Frost threw for 5 TDs and ran for 19. What started the downfall of Nebraska was when they hired Bill Callahan in the mid 2000s to implement his west coast quick passing offense on a team that ran the option for years under Osborne and Solich and threw the ball very little. Nebraska built a dynasy based on option football. Beyond that, the spread offense is a completely different philosophy from the read option yet you seem to be using them interchangeably. Read option can be incorporated into the spread but the read option the Bison are running this year is not anywhere near a spread offense.

Oh, and Minnesota started sucking around the time the forward pass was invented.

Any option offense is predicated on creating one on one matchups and hoping there is a mismatch. The triple option started to fade when defenses started becoming way more athletic and catching up. Even if you look at NDSU against a GSU when Heagle was coming up to basically play as a 4th LBer to fill a lane and you still had a DE like KE who could move down the line and roll off the pulling guard. I think teams now using the read option within the spread have some success because they are back to creating mismatches within specific lanes rather than trying to isolate the one guy on half of the field. The issue today is if the defense doesn't respect the pass, it becomes a 3 home run type game and the other team hopes it can outscore you. Osborne, especially, was absolutely fine with 4 yards a pop all the way down the field even though they did average like 6-7 YPC. I wasn't a fan of Nebraska, but I was a huge fan of the way those teams ran the TO. Tommy Frazier, for example, made the game look like it was in slow motion for him. He was one of the best at running play action off the option.

[Bison Bridge Guy]

There have been a few posts to the effect that if the QB is the leading rusher, we have a problem. Wentz has been the leading rusher twice this year, by a few yards each time. And the main reason he has been the leading rusher is that we have a committee at running back instead of most of the carries going to Crocket like last year. The reality is the running backs are doing the majority of the rushing. On the year Carson has about 25% of the rushing yards. Maybe that's too high for some, I don't know. But he is part of the running attack by design because he has the ability to do it. To me, it's not a bad thing if he gets 50 yards or so per game.

All that aside, I do agree with those that say our running game could be better if one back had a chance to get the majority of the carries so he and the OL could get in a rhythm.

[89MTBISON]

The reason we have running back by committee is that our best running back (s) are freshman, BA and LD. The two of them simply do not have enough experience/physical maturity to carry the load.....yet.

[ByeSonBusiness]

I'm on team CAS. Obviously the offense has been effective at getting yards and points, but the method of getting there doesn't "look" right to me.

I'd like to see them "grind" it out more. Not sure if it's that they are not capable or not willing. I'm guessing we'll find out.

[GOBISON123]

The good old days of ground and pound seem to be fading away. This saddens and concerns me.

LOL, :rofl: Carson Wentz is the best QB in college football and I dont see any reason why we need to run the ball more. I prefer the current format. Average Bison Football > Best UNI football

[NorthernBison]

I agree with you on the offense. I'm not a fan of read option either and prefer a pro style west coast offense. I'm not sure why coach P seems to prefer the read option.

Well, that read option embarrassed the HELL out of our defense. Executed properly, and with the right talent at QB, it can be virtually unstoppable. Both of the UNI QBs did well and neither is as talented as Carson.

Give you an idea of what opposing defenses are facing.

[westnodak93bison]

With the lead late can the Bison run the ball to control clock and preserve a win against a relentless offense/ passing attack like EWU or MT State? Can we run the ball if we want to? I'm skeptical at this point. Remember the famous quote from Ron Erhardt? Something like pass to score and run to win.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[stevdock]

With the lead late can the Bison run the ball to control clock and preserve a win against a relentless offense/ passing attack like EWU or MT State? Can we run the ball if we want to? I'm skeptical at this point. Remember the famous quote from Ron Erhardt? Something like pass to score and run to win.


Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

With a ball control offense like we had on Saturday, especially the second half, do we need to? That offense was so efficient in the second half that we chewed up the clock basically passing the ball. I'm not saying go away from the run, but some of the pass plays we are running feel like almost extended handoffs.

[westnodak93bison]

And if CW gets hurt then we are relying on a rfr qb. I'm thinking ahead. CW took a lot of hits Saturday.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Bisonator98]

Well, that read option embarrassed the HELL out of our defense. Executed properly, and with the right talent at QB, it can be virtually unstoppable. Both of the UNI QBs did well and neither is as talented as Carson.

Give you an idea of what opposing defenses are facing.

Yes when executed properly it's very effective. Just like anything. Different strokes for different folks I guess. I prefer a more pro style offense. Keep the QB under center, run with the RB's and play action pass. I'd rather see Carson sit in the pocket and pick apart a defense thru the air then risk losing him on a running play.

[IzzyFlexion]

Just some interesting tidbits related to this thread..............

The 1983 National Championship team's leading rusher in their 10 regular season games was Bentrim with 520 yards. (net) Bennie only played in 8 of those 10 games

The most yards that season for a non-quarterback (again the 10 reg. season games) was Jeff Willis with 361 yards. He played in all 10 games.

Team rushing for those 10 games was 2,321 yards.

Top 7 rushers: 520, 361, 336, 333, 267, 252, 185.

Quite remarkable when you think of a Bison championship team from the veer era. Seemed like they were getting 500 a game. Drove defenses crazy.

Through the first 5 games of this season, King Frazier leads the team with 318 yards. Wentz has 207, Morlock has 138, Anderson 138, and Dunn 115. Team total so far is: 992.

[THEsocalledfan]

^^^^^^^ This exactly! If the Bison had gone to the passing game earlier (on downs not forced to pass) the offense would have scored much more in the first half.

Which was basically the script that destroyed SDSU......glad they figured it out.

With that said, they still need to pound the rock at the right times to keep TOP up and wear the other team down. NDSU was breaking longer runs even at the end of the UNI game just like other opponents, but, let's face it, we don't have a Crockett or Ojuri this year....

[CAS4127]

Let us not forget that when we beat Montana State the way we did in 2010 in the POs, we all said we knew we couild beat and play with anyone in the country given our physical brand of play, which was a smash-mouth, pound the ball brand that wore other teams out. We proceeded to do that, and won three Natty's with that brand, and completely dominated the last two Natty games because of how physical we were on offense.. We got away from that brand last year, and continue to move farther from it, and are now running the offense that we faced and beat in those Natty runs. We also talk about how UND will do just fine in the BSC if they can get back to their old, physical brand of play on offense because, well, it's the "Big Fluffy". Seems a bit ironic and contradictory what we are doing on offense now, after having won the first 3 Natty's because of how physical we were on offense. Just think of how bad we physically punished SHSU and Towson in those first 3 Natty's compared to how ISU Red was right there with us to the end last year, much like MT and UNI this year. I don't like the trend I am seeing. A power run game both physically and emotionally drains an opposing D. What we are running now does not. They see it all the time both on Saturdays and in practice. It can be emulated. Power run can't be.

[THEsocalledfan]

Let us not forget that when we beat Montana State the way we did in 2010 in the POs, we all said we knew we couild beat and play with anyone in the country given our physical brand of play, which was a smash-mouth, pound the ball brand that wore other teams out. We proceeded to do that, and won three Natty's with that brand, and completely dominated the last two Natty games because of how physical we were on offense.. We got away from that brand last year, and continue to move farther from it, and are now running the offense that we faced and beat in those Natty runs. We also talk about how UND will do just fine in the BSC if they can get back to their old, physical brand of play on offense because, well, it's the "Big Fluffy". Seems a bit ironic and contradictory what we are doing on offense now, after having won the first 3 Natty's because of how physical we were on offense. Just think of how bad we physically punished SHSU and Towson in those first 3 Natty's compared to how ISU Red was right there with us to the end last year, much like MT and UNI this year. I don't like the trend I am seeing. A power run game both physically and emotionally drains an opposing D. What we are running now does not. They see it all the time both on Saturdays and in practice. It can be emulated. Power run can't be.

CAS, the obvious question you raise in my mind is the classic issue of the preferred system vs. customizing to the players strengths. To me, I am not sure we have the elite running back we need to play our typical game, while we have an all world QB and WR's. Thoughts?

[CAS4127]

CAS, the obvious question you raise in my mind is the classic issue of the preferred system vs. customizing to the players strengths. To me, I am not sure we have the elite running back we need to play our typical game, while we have an all world QB and WR's. Thoughts?

The vast majority of our starters are still Bohl recruits that were selected because they fit his system/brand. As for RBs, I think we are just fine there, with plenty of depth. I think both Dunn and B. Anderson, with a bit of KF/Morlockmixed in like Lang was would be perfect (I know Dunn and Morlock are hurt right now, but they should be good to go after this week). Would also like to see Morlock play way more fullback, as it gives both our running and passing (think screens/check downs) another weapon for opposing D's.

[Professor Chaos]

Let us not forget that when we beat Montana State the way we did in 2010 in the POs, we all said we knew we couild beat and play with anyone in the country given our physical brand of play, which was a smash-mouth, pound the ball brand that wore other teams out. We proceeded to do that, and won three Natty's with that brand, and completely dominated the last two Natty games because of how physical we were on offense.. We got away from that brand last year, and continue to move farther from it, and are now running the offense that we faced and beat in those Natty runs. We also talk about how UND will do just fine in the BSC if they can get back to their old, physical brand of play on offense because, well, it's the "Big Fluffy". Seems a bit ironic and contradictory what we are doing on offense now, after having won the first 3 Natty's because of how physical we were on offense. Just think of how bad we physically punished SHSU and Towson in those first 3 Natty's compared to how ISU Red was right there with us to the end last year, much like MT and UNI this year. I don't like the trend I am seeing. A power run game both physically and emotionally drains an opposing D. What we are running now does not. They see it all the time both on Saturdays and in practice. It can be emulated. Power run can't be.
That Montana St game was a beautiful game to watch but I'll take this year's offense and you can have that year's offense and if both of us have the same defense I'll beat you 8 times out of 10. That year's offense could not throw the ball very well at all. Completion % was 52.3% and average per pass attempt was 7 yards. This year's offense is much more efficient throwing the ball and actually is just as efficient, if not slightly better, running the ball as they were in 2010 in terms of yards per carry and yards per game.

EDIT: Of course given that the 2010 offense was not very efficient through the air the running game had to work even harder to get the yards they got.

[CAS4127]

That Montana St game was a beautiful game to watch but I'll take this year's offense and you can have that year's offense and if both of us have the same defense I'll beat you 8 times out of 10. That year's offense could not throw the ball very well at all. Completion % was 52.3% and average per pass attempt was 7 yards. This year's offense is much more efficient throwing the ball and actually is just as efficient, if not slightly better, running the ball as they were in 2010 in terms of yards per carry and yards per game.

EDIT: Of course given that the 2010 offense was not very efficient through the air the running game had to work even harder to get the yards they got.

Cool story, but you missed my point entirely.

[NorthernBison]

Everybody seems to forget that our DEFENSE changed significantly during the YSU game last season. Without TB, our ability to crush the read option/spread has suffered.

Against UNI we had TOP of nearly 40 minutes. Our defense couldn't have been worn out but they got gashed. Speed might be there or maybe it's down. Run fits and gap control are not solid.

So, does it really matter if the UNI defense wasn't gassed? Whether they were or weren't is debatable. What isn't debatable is that our offense that everybody is hating on still moved the ball at will in the second half.

[THEsocalledfan]

Without TB, our ability to crush the read option/spread has suffered.

TB? Definition?

[TransAmBison]

TB? Definition?Travis Beck.

[NorthernBison]

The legend. #52

[ndsubison1]

If we didnt have a QB what would our offense look like?

[THEsocalledfan]

Travis Beck.

I was thinking he meant TAB, as you've been off your game for a long time.... :hide:

[BYZEN]

If we didnt have a QB what would our offense look like?


Center sneak...all day long boys!!!

Purple

[THEsocalledfan]

The legend. #52

So, how are our OLB's coming along? I think DeLuca may be our next NDSU linebacker in the NFL.....(in other words, I think we are good in the middle....)

[Bisonator98]

IMO the running game issues have more to do with the oline and RB's than anything else. The oline to this point has been inconsistent, some games they have done great, others not so much. Heck Heag has even been beat a few times. Same with the RB's, they have missed holes and zigged when they probably should have zagged at times. I really think some of this has to do with familiarity and rhythm. The oline and backfield have been a mash unit with players hurt and I think we should be feeding 1-2 backs most of the carries. It's tough for 2 backs to split carries much less 4.

[BisonNation11]

So, how are our OLB's coming along? I think DeLuca may be our next NDSU linebacker in the NFL.....(in other words, I think we are good in the middle....)

In total agreement with you there. As far as the OLB's, I can't tell if not hearing their names is a good thing or not.

[NorthernBison]

So, how are our OLB's coming along? I think DeLuca may be our next NDSU linebacker in the NFL.....(in other words, I think we are good in the middle....)
They are all coming along, last week notwithstanding. I think MJ has played a lot faster after the Montana game. Still, they will never be as good as the unit they are replacing. Keep in mind that they are all Juniors and had two years after their redshirt year to get on the field. Beck was good enough as Freshmen to play full time at Will and CLJ was his backup that year in addition to playing in nickel. CLJ played pretty much every snap for the following 3 years. I think PGT would have alternated more last year with Esley if he had stayed healthy. The proof of any of these discussions is in the playing time. That tells you who was the best.

[X-Factor]

And if CW gets hurt then we are relying on a rfr qb. I'm thinking ahead. CW took a lot of hits Saturday.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Correction. If CW gets hurt we are relying on a rfr qb that beat out an older qb. The fact that Stick traveled with the team last year as a true freshman speaks volumes for his talent level.

[BYZEN]

Correction. If CW gets hurt we are relying on a rfr qb that beat out an older qb. The fact that Stick traveled with the team last year as a true freshman speaks volumes for his talent level.


And we have a GOOD BINGO!!!

[ndsubison1]

Stanford is power running all over UCLA

[SDbison]

Stanford is power running all over UCLA .........but Stanford used the pass early to open up their running game.

[CAS4127]

Here's how we used to be thought of:


North Dakota State ran a brutally efficient, pure power, smashmouth, up your gut, ruthless west Coast football. These are guys that are counter-culture to what's going on in football. These kids grew up on a ranch, drive a pick-up, wear a belt buckle, and don't mind bashing their head into a DE 15 to 20 times a game.

- Ian Boyd SBNation

Credit GOBISON123''s sigline.

I miss this type of offense--ALOT!!

[Rock]

.........but Stanford used the pass early to open up their running game.

Did Stanford use 1st half fly routes commonly or dink and dunk passing with commitment to run?

Real question I didn't watch.

Personally I'd rather see a pass on 3rd and 8 after 2 runs (mostly by rb between tackles) than a pass on 3 and 8 after 1 pass and 1 run.

after a while showing some tendencies qb draw on 3 and 8 may work. Maybe get a few 3 and 4's out of it also.

[Snowgoose]

What some of us are saying is it is not how much we run but how we are running. We are still running the ball about as much just using a different style than what we used to. I am one that thinks that our old way and the way Stanford does it is the best method, not our current version. Stanford ran that same offense with Andrew luck at the helm.

[ndsubison1]

Did Stanford use 1st half fly routes commonly or dink and dunk passing with commitment to run?

Real question I didn't watch.

Personally I'd rather see a pass on 3rd and 8 after 2 runs (mostly by rb between tackles) than a pass on 3 and 8 after 1 pass and 1 run.

after a while showing some tendencies qb draw on 3 and 8 may work. Maybe get a few 3 and 4's out of it also.

They did a fly sweep reverse pass and the WR caught it against the DBs back :)

[Rock]

They did a fly sweep reverse pass and the WR caught it against the DBs back :)

Just one????

[yopaulie]

Is run the dam ball obsolete? ...NO.

[NDSUSR]

Is run the dam ball obsolete? ...NO.

It is when our backs and O-line cant execute. The scheme is sound, the execution is suspect.

[BisManBison]

South Dakota ran the ball just fine.

[gizmo]

South Dakota ran the ball just fine.

Yes! Yes! Yes!