What is it gonna take?

[nebcountry]

The second season under Riley is just around the corner. We had a losing season last year. Some blamed players, some blamed coaches, and some blamed the transition. It would be great, imo, if we were more unified. What are your benchmarks? Some people are gonna want to say that we are still in transition. For perspective, will you have concerns if we lose every single game this year? So, pick some numbers or criteria.

What NEEDS to happen this year to ease YOUR concerns?

I don't think I have the bar set very high. 8 wins and I'll even count the bowl game. Top 25 recruiting.

What NEEDS to happen this year for YOU to be satisfied?

9 regular season wins and a top 20 recruiting class.

 

[bigboxes]

I agree with what you said. 8 wins, Top 25 recruiting and he keeps his job. I'm expecting that. 9 wins and Top 20? I'm expecting that too. Outside of the victories, I feel that Coach Riley is doing everything right. Winning is what will draw us all together. There will still be the trolls, but we can deal with that when the time comes. Let's bring on the season!

 

[Pennsyhusker_rivals246774]

There is a difference between what I would be satisfied with and what I might just tolerate and settle for. I would be satisfied with 9 wins and a top 20 recruiting class. I would settle for 8 wins and a top 25 class without grumbling too much. The latter would be disappointing though. Anything less than 8 wins and a top 25 recruiting finish would kill any momentum Riley has built. So it would make me very uneasy.

 

[Redscarlet]

The Nebraska standard since the Devaney era regardless of playing more regular season games (12) since 2002 has been winning Nine games.

Only years we've not accomplished this 1967,1968,2002,2004,2005,2007 and last year. That's 46 out of 53 years.

Nine win season including the bowl game is what I would like to see happen in Mike Riley's second year.

Playing Iowa for the division title on Black Friday would also be a feather in the hat.

 

[HuskerOH_rivals315145]

The QB situation is going to define this season. If TA implodes again, 7-8 wins and break in a new QB for next year. If TA stays within himself (Great coaching will require this) 9-10 wins. The wild card for this season is TA and his ego.

 

[Cornicator]

Nebraska steps on the field with more talent, depth, and experience than these 8 teams:

Fresno State
Wyoming
Indiana
Illinois
Northwestern
Purdue
Maryland
Minnesota

They have more experience than Wisconsin and Oregon.

They have equal experience and depth as Iowa with a bit more talent at certain positions.

They are less talented than Ohio State, and while Nebraska has more experience. That factor will be irrelevant by November.

Win the 8 games above and go 2-2 in the other 4.

9-3 is acceptable, but I argue The team is better than 9-3.

 

[Cornicator]

The QB situation is going to define this season. If TA implodes again, 7-8 wins and break in a new QB for next year. If TA stays within himself (Great coaching will require this) 9-10 wins. The wild card for this season is TA and his ego.

Disagree..... Defense is the wildcard. It will allow Nebraska to take less risks with Tommy.

 

[Redscarlet]

Disagree..... Defense is the wildcard. It will allow Nebraska to take less risks with Tommy.

Good point, but TA can also help the defense out by not leaving them the short field or turning the ball over more then once a game.

Tommy has to play a lot like Iowa's Bethard and help his defense out.

 

[otismotis08]

Compete in the B1G championship game. Period.

 

[RealHusker]

I guess my expectations could be considered 'guarded'. NU had more talent than a few teams they lost to last year, so I'm not ready to count on 8 wins yet. Winning 3 of the last 4 last season is reason for optimism - but that ugly loss to Iowa is a reminder of how fragile NU was. "Was", I hope - not "is".

NU has a 5th year Senior QB and there should be no lingering 'discomfort' from the coaching change. The schedule is not daunting. It shouldn't seem unreasonable to expect NU to be 9-2 going into the Iowa game - but it sort of does.

 

[Cornicator]

I guess my expectations could be considered 'guarded'. NU had more talent than a few teams they lost to last year, so I'm not ready to count on 8 wins yet. Winning 3 of the last 4 last season is reason for optimism - but that ugly loss to Iowa is a reminder of how fragile NU was. "Was", I hope - not "is".

NU has a 5th year Senior QB and there should be no lingering 'discomfort' from the coaching change. The schedule is not daunting. It shouldn't seem unreasonable to expect NU to be 9-2 going into the Iowa game - but it sort of does.

There may have been more talent "on paper", but once injuries, suspensions, and the massive changes in philosophy came into play, the Huskers had a lot of flaws.

This especially was problematic on defense and special teams.

 

[NikkiSixx_rivals269993]

You know, what is interesting to me is the recent talk from Mike about wanting to run the ball more. His comments from the Big Red Today Breakfast touched on this and I certainly took notice.

If he uses Tommy like the UCLA game, and gives him 15-20 passes a game, that would be ideal. I think we easily get into that CCG.

If he tries to turn him into Brett Favre, we will see a repeat of last year.

The offensive line and running backs better be ready to go.

 

[TFrazier_rivals269992]

Good point, but TA can also help the defense out by not leaving them the short field or turning the ball over more then once a game.

Tommy has to play a lot like Iowa's Bethard and help his defense out.

The offensive coaching staff can put TA in better situations so that he plays to his strengths. TA needs to make better decisions on the field but so do Langsdorf/Riley when actually calling those plays. Especially with a lead late in the game!! Winking

 

[k9_r]

What NEEDS to happen this year for YOU to be satisfied?

Can you still fall out of bed and win nine games at Nebraska?

We need to win the West. Failing that, we need to win 10 or more games including the bowl game.

It's a 13 game schedule loaded with lesser teams for crying out loud.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

Can you still fall out of bed and win nine games at Nebraska?

We need to win the West. Failing that, we need to win 10 or more games including the bowl game.

It's a 13 game schedule loaded with lesser teams for crying out loud.

Nope...we are all pretending like a "monkey could fall out of his futon and win 9 games at Nebraska" was never said...even though it was said all the time.

 

[DudznSudz]

My expectations:

8-4 with atop 25 recruiting class.
This is very reasonable given what this team is, what we offer, and the caliber of players we have around. I was just down in Lincoln yesterday touring the facilities and even talked the guy at the gym into letting my friend and I walk around during workouts (it was pretty badass to see Coach Phillip at work), and what that showed me was, we have a hell of a program with some real resources and talent behind it. On top of that, I really appreciate Cornicator's post listing the teams that we are flat out better than on our schedule (there are 8 of them), as it shows that there isn't any good reason at all why we shouldn't win 8 games.

What I want to see, but am realistic about:

9-3 or 10-2, top 20 recruiting class.
I think we have the ability to go 9-3 or even 10-2, but I don't think we're anywhere near the team we need to be to expect that yet. We have a lot of offensive experience coming back, a defense that should be better than last years overall with one glaring question mark (the line), and our schedule isn't THAT bad. I think that Oregon will be our big test that will determine the difference between the 8-4 and 9-3/10-2 mark; that game is going to be a real challenge, and we have a TON of top flight recruits visiting for that game. Beat the Ducks, and the sky is the limit. Don't, and we can still have a great season and score decent recruits, but the ease of our accomplishing that diminishes considerably.

Tom Shatel's piece in the World Herald today talked about how he thinks Riley is the best representative of Nebraska Football we've had since Osborne; he's nailing all of the personable things, his demeanor is calm and pleasant, and his coaching staff is really, really putting forth the effort. Having said all of that, we still need to see consistency and wins. If that finally starts falling into place this season, I think we're in for quite a few good years of football.

 

[PeliniTheCrutch_rivals294365]

Anything less than 9 wins this year should put the boss on the hot seat. 8 wins this year is hot garbage.

 

[Shimmer003]

Way too many question marks and lack of depth to really say. I'm a fan of evaluating at the end of the season. If we lose TA to an injury early or have a few injuries on the DL, then it's hard to say we should win 9 games. Also, there are enough teams on our schedule with potential to just be better than us...Oregon, Ohio state, Wisconsin, Iowa...if those teams are just better than us it's hard to say we should win 9. On the flip side, we have to start beating the teams we should beat. Which we didn't do last year. It's just hard to know which tea we should beat before the season even starts. I'll be happy if we just win the games we should win, don't get blown out and maybe pull one upset. That's very generic but it's really the only way to set the standard for this year. Too many unknowns.

 

[huskerfan1414]

I can't believe anyone would say anything less than 9 wins is acceptable. This is still Nebraska and we play 12 regular season games.
My biggest fear about last year's pathetic season is that it would lower the bar, and Riley winning 7 or 8 games would be seen as meaningful progress. Looks like that's what has happened. Anything less than 9 is unacceptable.
Nine wins should be a certainty but I wouldn't be surprised to see 10 this season, especially since I think we will beat Oregon, which will be huge for momentum.

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

You know, what is interesting to me is the recent talk from Mike about wanting to run the ball more. His comments from the Big Red Today Breakfast touched on this and I certainly took notice.

If he uses Tommy like the UCLA game, and gives him 15-20 passes a game, that would be ideal. I think we easily get into that CCG.

If he tries to turn him into Brett Favre, we will see a repeat of last year.

The offensive line and running backs better be ready to go.

Well that seems to be Black and White. No need to use the receivers, the most talented group on the field. I agree a solid running game can control things. But the game has changed. "Run the ball" guy with his 1988 Walmart headphones on is becoming a relic. The rules of the game make throwing a necessity. To ignore it is grasping at a past that will never come back.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Well that seems to be Black and White. No need to use the receivers, the most talented group on the field. I agree a solid running game can control things. But the game has changed. "Run the ball" guy with his 1988 Walmart headphones on is becoming a relic. The rules of the game make throwing a necessity. To ignore it is grasping at a past that will never come back.

No, you are wrong and last season's national stats prove you are.
I have posted this numerous times. Nebraska was 45th in the nation in passes attempted per game last season. Almost every top 25 team was behind us (less Passes per game) despite this being the "air it out" era. Among those teams were Oregon and Baylor, teams everyone believes to be pass happy. Stanford, Bama, Iowa, Mich state, Mich, USC, OU, etc etc, on and on all were less, in some cases much less. The best teams were around 20-33 passes per game. We were 35. We need to get down to 25 and you will see improvement and more yards for those receivers you rightfully touted.
You have the classic hyperbolic view of those who say "run the ball". To prove your point you try to make us out as hayseed hicks who think we still run the option. We aren't asking for the option or 60 runs a game, so stop acting as if we are and putting words into people's mouths.
I don't see how anyone can look at last season and argue that running the ball more would'nt have lead to more than 6 wins. It most obviously would have.

 

[otismotis08]

No, you are wrong and last season's national stats prove you are.
I have posted this numerous times. Nebraska was 45th in the nation in passes attempted per game last season. Almost every top 25 team was behind us (less Passes per game) despite this being the "air it out" era. Among those teams were Oregon and Baylor, teams everyone believes to be pass happy. Stanford, Bama, Iowa, Mich state, Mich, USC, OU, etc etc, on and on all were less, in some cases much less. The best teams were around 20-33 passes per game. We were 35. We need to get down to 25 and you will see improvement and more yards for those receivers you rightfully touted.
You have the classic hyperbolic view of those who say "run the ball". To prove your point you try to make us out as hayseed hicks who think we still run the option. We aren't asking for the option or 60 runs a game, so stop acting as if we are and putting words into people's mouths.
I don't see how anyone can look at last season and argue that running the ball more would'nt have lead to more than 6 wins. It most obviously would have.

Spot on. And I still miss the option, but if you don't run it routinely, the risks are too great.

 

[timnsun]

No, you are wrong and last season's national stats prove you are.
I have posted this numerous times. Nebraska was 45th in the nation in passes attempted per game last season. Almost every top 25 team was behind us (less Passes per game) despite this being the "air it out" era. Among those teams were Oregon and Baylor, teams everyone believes to be pass happy. Stanford, Bama, Iowa, Mich state, Mich, USC, OU, etc etc, on and on all were less, in some cases much less. The best teams were around 20-33 passes per game. We were 35. We need to get down to 25 and you will see improvement and more yards for those receivers you rightfully touted.
You have the classic hyperbolic view of those who say "run the ball". To prove your point you try to make us out as hayseed hicks who think we still run the option. We aren't asking for the option or 60 runs a game, so stop acting as if we are and putting words into people's mouths.
I don't see how anyone can look at last season and argue that running the ball more would'nt have lead to more than 6 wins. It most obviously would have.

And likewise, you have a skewed view as well. In the previous post (which 4.6.3 quoted) you said 15-20 passes per game, which means 40-50 rushes per game. That is run heavy any way you slice it. You automatically assume proponents of this offense are saying we need to air it out. I don't see 4.6.3 saying we need to air it out. He is saying we can't abandon the pass. Is there something wrong with a more balanced approach that tends toward more running? 25 passes and 35-40 rushes per game. You get more rushes like you are asking for but there is enough threat in the passing game to keep other teams honest.

I think most on this board would agree that if we are throwing 35 passes per game that's too much. If we can get away with running 40-50 times a game because that is what the other team is offering us, great, we take it! See UCLA game. But not every game will look that way.

 

[nebcountry]

I can't believe anyone would say anything less than 9 wins is acceptable. This is still Nebraska and we play 12 regular season games.
My biggest fear about last year's pathetic season is that it would lower the bar, and Riley winning 7 or 8 games would be seen as meaningful progress. Looks like that's what has happened. Anything less than 9 is unacceptable.
Nine wins should be a certainty but I wouldn't be surprised to see 10 this season, especially since I think we will beat Oregon, which will be huge for momentum.

Acceptable, unacceptable,... and that which is tolerated. It's year two for Riley, not his 4th or 5th year here. IMO, there is only a small fraction of fans that would consider 8 or less wins "successful".

The point of the thread was to see where the middle ground is gonna be. We (the fanbase) have divisive opinions that started basically the day Riley was hired and continue to today.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

8-4 with losses to Oregon. OSU, Wisconsin and Iowa is sort of lame.
Toss in a 5th loss and it is sad
Toss in a 6th loss and it is flaming time...that means they lost to some lame teams

 

[Buicklife]

Play sound football...ie turnovers/penalties/blown assignments

Beat the teams you are better than
Compete for the conference crown
Finish season inside top 25

If you do those things 9-3 should be more than attainable.

 

[NikkiSixx_rivals269993]

And likewise, you have a skewed view as well. In the previous post (which 4.6.3 quoted) you said 15-20 passes per game, which means 40-50 rushes per game. That is run heavy any way you slice it. You automatically assume proponents of this offense are saying we need to air it out. I don't see 4.6.3 saying we need to air it out. He is saying we can't abandon the pass. Is there something wrong with a more balanced approach that tends toward more running? 25 passes and 35-40 rushes per game. You get more rushes like you are asking for but there is enough threat in the passing game to keep other teams honest.

I think most on this board would agree that if we are throwing 35 passes per game that's too much. If we can get away with running 40-50 times a game because that is what the other team is offering us, great, we take it! See UCLA game. But not every game will look that way.

I think what is being lost in the translation is the idea that we should play to Tommy's strengths. Regardless of what that number of passes is, we as fans can see when that happens vs when it does not.

I liked hearing Riley say he wanted to run the ball more, and because we have a senior dual threat QB, that sounds pretty good.

Next year is a completely different thing, and will be a completely different QB.
This is about 2016 only. And next year, I'll look forward to seeing what a pro style guy can do.

 

[dockentwo]

And likewise, you have a skewed view as well. In the previous post (which 4.6.3 quoted) you said 15-20 passes per game, which means 40-50 rushes per game. That is run heavy any way you slice it. You automatically assume proponents of this offense are saying we need to air it out. I don't see 4.6.3 saying we need to air it out. He is saying we can't abandon the pass. Is there something wrong with a more balanced approach that tends toward more running? 25 passes and 35-40 rushes per game. You get more rushes like you are asking for but there is enough threat in the passing game to keep other teams honest.

I think most on this board would agree that if we are throwing 35 passes per game that's too much. If we can get away with running 40-50 times a game because that is what the other team is offering us, great, we take it! See UCLA game. But not every game will look that way.

Thanks for posting; you are insightful. I know its scattered about the threads; but some others don't get it , or maybe don't appreciate the effort.
- The coaches want to run; but not into a stacked box, they even understand Pro ball.
- They will have receivers also running the ball from all over: Carters TE running has given us a couple of killer plays at critical times ( and this makes D's stop and think ).
- Many screens; over and underhanded, all forms/ not exactly radical pass plays.
- Stated multiple times; they will chuck it long every so many plays: will hit on this and keeps D somewhat on heels.
- RB's and FB can catch and HB's ( TE).
- Traps and misdirection. They get it all; TA couldn't work the whole plan and it hurt them.
- Will probably put restrictions on ability to audible.
I goes on and on; if you have played D; you know these things can be very effective, a mano on mano run game is simply easier to defend and bring help up.GBR

 

[bloodredd]

need to win at least 9 .............

 

[SnohomishRed]

And likewise, you have a skewed view as well. In the previous post (which 4.6.3 quoted) you said 15-20 passes per game, which means 40-50 rushes per game. That is run heavy any way you slice it. You automatically assume proponents of this offense are saying we need to air it out. I don't see 4.6.3 saying we need to air it out. He is saying we can't abandon the pass. Is there something wrong with a more balanced approach that tends toward more running? 25 passes and 35-40 rushes per game. You get more rushes like you are asking for but there is enough threat in the passing game to keep other teams honest.

I think most on this board would agree that if we are throwing 35 passes per game that's too much. If we can get away with running 40-50 times a game because that is what the other team is offering us, great, we take it! See UCLA game. But not every game will look that way.

Not sure how anyone can remember last year and not say we were too slanted to the pass. Its not just about how many it is about what they naturally gravitate towards. You have a QB who is throwing a lot of ints and a defense that is giving up a lot of points, and yet your first inclination is to pass instead of slowing the game down and not putting your defense in bad spots. I really do not care the run/pass ratio and of course you need to do both but we should have the persona of a running team and the attitude we will run when we want to and not be throwing bubble screens on the two yard line on first down

 

[nebcountry]

I think what is being lost in the translation is the idea that we should play to Tommy's strengths. Regardless of what that number of passes is, we as fans can see when that happens vs when it does not.

I liked hearing Riley say he wanted to run the ball more, and because we have a senior dual threat QB, that sounds pretty good.

Next year is a completely different thing, and will be a completely different QB.
This is about 2016 only. And next year, I'll look forward to seeing what a pro style guy can do.

I would like for us to be run heavy 60/40ish split, but I'm not the coach. For 70 plays per game, that would be 42 runs and 28 passes. If you want to call plays like you have a professional qb, than you better have one on your roster. You better be able to recruit them in an inexhaustible supply line and they have to pan out.

If we're talking 2016, and we win 9 regular season games. All things considered, I'm not gonna make fuss about the run/pass ratio.

This is a challenge for any that want to take it on. Rewatch our plays from the Purdue game AND take notes. Identity when Purdue overloads the box and record our play selection, down, and distance. Do the same when Purdue drops more guys into pass coverage. I tried doing it, but I couldn't watch anymore after the beside the head/over the head snap.

 

[huskerfan1414]

And likewise, you have a skewed view as well. In the previous post (which 4.6.3 quoted) you said 15-20 passes per game, which means 40-50 rushes per game. That is run heavy any way you slice it. You automatically assume proponents of this offense are saying we need to air it out. I don't see 4.6.3 saying we need to air it out. He is saying we can't abandon the pass. Is there something wrong with a more balanced approach that tends toward more running? 25 passes and 35-40 rushes per game. You get more rushes like you are asking for but there is enough threat in the passing game to keep other teams honest.

I think most on this board would agree that if we are throwing 35 passes per game that's too much. If we can get away with running 40-50 times a game because that is what the other team is offering us, great, we take it! See UCLA game. But not every game will look that way.

I didnt say 15-20, I said 25 in my post but would expect to see some 15-20 games if thats whats working like ucla. I know he didn't say air it out. My response to his post was appropriate.
Heck even two less passes a game would have won us at least 2 more last season.

 

[timnsun]

I didnt say 15-20, I said 25 in my post but would expect to see some 15-20 games if thats whats working like ucla. I know he didn't say air it out. My response to his post was appropriate.
Heck even two less passes a game would have won us at least 2 more last season.

My bad... I saw 15-20 in another post that was not yours. For some reason when I read the post I attributed it to you. Apologies...

 

[GBRhuskers_rivals203711]

I liked hearing Riley say he wanted to run the ball more

Can you or someone else share an article of some kind where Riley actually said this?

 

[NikkiSixx_rivals269993]

Can you or someone else share an article of some kind where Riley actually said this?

Sure, the one I saw was here: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/nebras...cle_7a05d5c8-58ab-11e6-ae7d-6b9a1c62da77.html

 

[anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi]

And likewise, you have a skewed view as well. In the previous post (which 4.6.3 quoted) you said 15-20 passes per game, which means 40-50 rushes per game. That is run heavy any way you slice it. You automatically assume proponents of this offense are saying we need to air it out. I don't see 4.6.3 saying we need to air it out. He is saying we can't abandon the pass. Is there something wrong with a more balanced approach that tends toward more running? 25 passes and 35-40 rushes per game. You get more rushes like you are asking for but there is enough threat in the passing game to keep other teams honest.

I think most on this board would agree that if we are throwing 35 passes per game that's too much. If we can get away with running 40-50 times a game because that is what the other team is offering us, great, we take it! See UCLA game. But not every game will look that way.

I think about a 58-42 run pass mix is ok. But we seem to need to freak out and jump to 85-15 around here. One of the dumbest things I have seen lately is how a rushing yard is "worth" more than a passing yard. That is completely asinine. A yard is a yard, the distance does not change simply because your yards per attempt is different on the ground when compared to through the air.

 

[GBRhuskers_rivals203711]

Sure, the one I saw was here: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/nebras...cle_7a05d5c8-58ab-11e6-ae7d-6b9a1c62da77.html

Thank you. It's interesting how people are interpreting his words, you and I read it differently.

 

[nebcountry]

Can you or someone else share an article of some kind where Riley actually said this?

This is what I remember:

Minnesota - Riley says balance wins the game and he likes it. 39 rushes, 26 passes with both gaining over 200 yds. Later Riley says it's not in the game plan to run it that much.

UCLA - Riley speaks positively about the run game. 62 rushes, 19 passes with over 300 yds on the ground.

Prior to spring practice - Riley says it's not the attempts, it's the efficiency that he wants to be rated high.

So, it's left up to interpretation to some degree. There was a cornnation article right before spring practice. The author of the article doesn't quote Riley, but provides the author's interpretation:

On run/pass ratios: Wants to be more productive with running the ball without needing to call more running plays. Offense needs to be more productive running the ball week to week. This is what we're going to be week to week, no matter the opponent.

 

[SnohomishRed]

I think about a 58-42 run pass mix is ok. But we seem to need to freak out and jump to 85-15 around here. One of the dumbest things I have seen lately is how a rushing yard is "worth" more than a passing yard. That is completely asinine. A yard is a yard, the distance does not change simply because your yards per attempt is different on the ground when compared to through the air.

Except many top coaches simply disagree with you : http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/1/...hers-russell-wilson-cam-newton-marshawn-lynch

it is simply not true a yard is a yard - being a dominant rushing team wears down a defense much more - it demoralizes a defense on long drives. It controls the clock and is not as dependent on having a top flight QB on his game week in week out

Most championship teams run the ball very well - yes occasionally a team can have dominant passing game - but the formula for success is a dominant defense and and a hard nosed running game

 

[SnohomishRed]

It still does not "count as more". I can agree running the ball can control the game. A yard is still a yard. Claiming it is more valuable is asinine. You really going to turn down that game winning drive against Sparty simply because it was accomplished with the forward pass? Yeah, I thought so.

if you are taking this is as literal - yes a yard remains the same distance no matter rushing or passing - but that is not the point - The question is does a yard rushing in a game give a team a better chance of winning than a yard passing - I think if you look at the numbers and stats clearly a rushing yard is worth more

"
We believed that a rushing yard was more valuable than a passing yard when it came to winning football games," Osborne wrote. "If one team threw for the ball for 300 yards and had no rushing yards and its opponent rushed for 300 yards and had no passing yards (assuming that all other factors in the game were equal), the rushing team would win a vast majority of the time."

The logic?

"The running game enables a team to control the ball, convert short-yardage and goal-line situations, and wear down the opposition."

A lot of it, too, came down to protecting the ball and avoiding turnovers, which is Pete Carroll's top priority as well. "If you throw it 50 times and you throw for 250 yards and you have one touchdown and three interceptions," Osborne said, "you'd have been better off letting the air out of the ball."

And by the way - would we have needed that last minute pass - if in fact we did not throw a bubble screen on the 2 yard line and instead ran the ball in - Passing is important but teams that have a running identity win more pure and simple. I also believe a run oriented team plays better defense