MinotStateBeav said:
BearlyCareAnymore said:
MinotStateBeav said:
Weird because I don't see our rushing game as the problem for us. We just don't have enough running backs is the issue imho. Our starter has been fairly effective in what we're asking him to do. He's just not a bursty running back that can take it the distance, he's a guy that will find the hole and get you 3 or 4, sometimes bang out a 8-10 yard run. He just can't take 25-30 carries a game, doesn't have the body for that much. If we had another back that could do what he does, our running game would be pretty good.
We are actually dead last in yards per carry. A tiny bit skewed by the fact that JKS doesn't really run and his sack numbers count toward rushing (but that is an issue for everyone). But our top RB yards per carry isn't good either.
No, our running game is terrible by any measure.
Our running game is getting what it's built to get though, we don't have a speed back, we have a back that gets 2-4 yards a carry. Tbh we only have 1 back we're using as well (well except for that new guy that's being used the last game or 2 a few carries.) I don't mean to say our running game is good, I mean it's getting all that its capable of getting considering the way we use it and the personnel. Taking that into account, our offense is pretty dependent on throwing the ball, so our lack of WR speed seems to be the most glaring weakness.
You seem to be saying we have a RB who can only get 4 yards per carry so its okay we only get 4 yards a carry. If the O is only designed to get 4 yards a carry, that is a poorly designed O. This isn't the NFL where that is good. And, I disagree with the concept. Tedford's running game was largely power running between the tackles and we were getting twice the yards per carry or more. We don't run that often because we can't.
And I know, Tedford had a great O-line and we have a bad O-line. Tedford had guys like Marshawn, and we...don't. I don't expect us to match that, but that is why Tedford had a good running game where the O-line pushed people off the line and the RB's hit the hole fast and broke tackles and got yards after contact and we have a bad running game where the O-line gets no push, no holes are created, and our RB hits contact and maybe falls forward for an extra half yard with virtually no yards after contact. Nobody builds a running game to be last in the country in yards per carry. And, if it is purpose built to be last in the country, well, it is purpose built to be a very bad running game. Therefore, it is still a terrible running game.
I would suggest this to you. Your opinion is driven more by the fact that you correctly deduce that our running game has a very low ceiling, so you don't expect much from it. You correctly deduce that our running game isn't going to dramatically alter the fortunes of our offense. You correctly deduce that the passing game has a higher ceiling and therefore feel it is "the problem". I would argue that they are both "the problem" and the running game is clearly tragically worse than the passing game. That the fact that you don't expect much from it is mirrored by the fact that our opponents don't expect much from it either and key pass. They know that if Cal is going to beat them, it will be JKS that does it. Our running game being so ineffective kneecaps the passing game.
In other words, meeting expectations doesn't mean it is doing its job when your expectations are last in the country.
