Which we did from 2005 through 2012. Didn't have a good defense for most of that time, BUT WE WON A LOT OF GAMES.
Not only 1-10 but just so boring to watch
- Thread starter wildcatcoaster
- Start date
Which we did from 2005 through 2012. Didn't have a good defense for most of that time, BUT WE WON A LOT OF GAMES.
At least one does:
The Boring Company
The Boring Company constructs safe, fast-to-dig, and low-cost transportation, utility, and freight tunnels.
www.boringcompany.com
We did not score a lot of points in that era. Over the course of that period we progressed from being bad in Fitz’s first couple years, up to around average-ish, to a couple years of above average. However, I think we did a lot of things to get something out of our extremely untalented offense. Made chicken salad out of chicken shit, as it were.
The only thing that matters is winning.
We can win as we did in the past, but it requires an absolute top 5 defensive coordinator.
If we're going to play for time of possession/ball control, there's just no other way than we have to have a top-flight defense.
And the offense still has to be functional. Still have to be able to get 3-4 TD drives out of the offense even if there's a lot of punts.
We can win as we did in the past, but it requires an absolute top 5 defensive coordinator.
If we're going to play for time of possession/ball control, there's just no other way than we have to have a top-flight defense.
And the offense still has to be functional. Still have to be able to get 3-4 TD drives out of the offense even if there's a lot of punts.
I think Fitz has been trying to become Wisconsin. Run the ball for over 200 yards per game, week after week after week. Gary Barnett, 1995, Darnell Autry/Matt Hartl power football, with bigger stats. There is no doubt about it - that is a winning formula, especially if you have at least a competent defense. That is certainly complimentary football.
Even though I personally love high scoring, big stats passing offenses first and foremost, and was a relatively happy camper on and off from 2000 to 2010, I've said on this board many times before I would LOVE it if NU, for the past fifteen years, looked just like Wisconsin - great OLs that impose their will on opponents week after week after week, and not just one, but a long line of Justin Jacksons. And of course 8, 9, 10 wins year after year.
The small problem is, as everybody here has detailed countless times, we've had pretty underachieving offensive lines pretty much ever since we lost Randy Walker in 2006. At times, like JJTBC's four years, we've run the ball pretty well, but never near the Wisconsin dominant level. When Kurt Anderson showed up four years ago, many of us thought our weak running game days were over, but.... not so much.
I'd like to hear from GCG and other smart football guys why Wisconsin has been so unique over the past three decades? Why have they alone in the Big Ten been the one team who has, year after year after year (until a few years ago), had absolutely DOMINANT power run blocking OLs? They have recruited a few four star and top 100 running backs like Ron Dayne and Michael Bennett, but most of their many superstar, 4000 career yards RBs were just regular very good recruits, not WOW recruits. Same with their OLmen. Mostly midwestern kids from Cheeseland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, etc., who were not offered by Notre Shame or Michiscum. Yet they have turned out more OL NFL draft picks than almost anybody.
But more to the point, because of that great power running game and strong defense, Wisconsin goes to a bowl game EVERY SINGLE year. To be exact, since 1993, they have missed playing in a bowl game TWO times (95, 2001). Yo. In the past 30 years, they won at least 8 games TWENTY THREE times. In the fifteen year period between 2005 and 2019 they won at least ten games TEN times. Yo.
So why wouldn't Fitz try to be Wisconsin? I think RW tried to go that route, but quickly realized it couldn't happen at NU. Certainly not then. He adjusted, and found a pretty successful model. Fitz witnessed and experienced up close nearly that whole process.
But back to Wisconsin - how did they do it? And why can't we, or other Big Ten teams reach that level of power running game success and constant winning? Iowa has probably come the closest over time, and Minnesota has had a handful of teams under Glen Mason and even Fleck who have played that style at a high level. And now Hairball has returned Michiscum to that model.
Would love to hear thoughts on this, plus if you agree that this has been the model Fitz has aspired to.
Last edited:
Wisconsin wasn’t successful because they had consistently good O line play. They weren’t good because they had consistently GREAT o line play. They were successful because they had consistently literally the best or right next to the best and most elite run blocking o line in the country, every single year, year after year. Also, NFL or Heisman running backs every single year.
Thing is, it’s really really hard to achieve that level of success. Nobody other than Wisconsin has achieved that level of sustain success dominantly running the ball. Actually, even Wisconsin doesn’t achieve that level of success any more and hasn’t for years. With offensive lines that are merely very good instead of shockingly dominant, the whole thing grinds to a halt.
As attractive as I do find that style of physically unstoppable football, it’s a lot easier to have a system that doesn’t require you to be completely and utterly dominate physically every week to have a chance to be successful. One where you can get good results by just being pretty decent up front is a heck of a lot easier.
I think this is a good answer and I think it's why so many elite teams have moved away from the power/ball control (Tressel-ball etc.) style strategies.
Michigan this year is a pretty solid version of it but without their stud RBs (Corum injured and Edwards out) in the game against Illinois they struggled to find the endzone.
Still, it also depends on the program's goals.
If you want to win the national championship, you need a much more explosive offense than you did even just 10 years ago. Even Alabama gets into shootouts now.
But for our goals which I think are much more modest, you can still win a lot of games with an elite defense and serviceable offense. It an open question though as to whether we can ever really build that kind of power based offense on a consistent basis.
I also agree that Wisconsin's run as a "super elite" regular (i.e. Rose Bowl/Big Ten champion) kind of team is probably over.
They had lightning in a bottle for 2 decades (top RBs regularly behind a line loaded with NFL picks), but not at all clear they can reach those types of heights again.
Last edited:
I'd be thrilled if we'd reach the "pretty decent" run blocking level. Right now I'd call us OK at best. My idea of pretty decent is 150-175+ yards per game, constantly. What we did with Jason Wright, Noah Herron, Sutton, and JJTBC. That was pretty decent, if not very good. That's what I expect. I really hope Anderson and whatever our near future offensive scheme is, can get us back there. That's winning football (also with a much better passing game, of course).
I still would like to know, what did Wisconsin do differently than everybody else to reach that dominant level for a long period of time? Every P5 team's linemen practically live in the weight room - so there has to be more to it than that. They basically became Nebraska - in terms of how physically overpowering their blockers were. How?
CatManTrue, you've told us you're friends with some former Cheesehead linemen. How about you lay some Truth on us? Fans wanna know.
I think a team that wins "boring" is easier to recruit for than a team that loses "exciting".
For the simple reason that if you win being boring, you're still doing SOMETHING right and extremely well.
So maybe you win all the game 3-0 or 7-3. Then some might say "see, that would be bad, we will not be able to recruit a QB or WR". I would point out that this is true, but you might get every five star defensive player in the country to play for you. Of course the opposite is true as well if you are high scoring. No defensive player comes near you but every QB wants to play for "that head coach that will put me in the NFL as a QB".
For the simple reason that if you win being boring, you're still doing SOMETHING right and extremely well.
So maybe you win all the game 3-0 or 7-3. Then some might say "see, that would be bad, we will not be able to recruit a QB or WR". I would point out that this is true, but you might get every five star defensive player in the country to play for you. Of course the opposite is true as well if you are high scoring. No defensive player comes near you but every QB wants to play for "that head coach that will put me in the NFL as a QB".
For me, the "boring" part is not about recruiting, it's about the fan experience. I agree that winning 7-3 is better than losing 41-40. That said, a team that executes well on at least one side of the ball and plays tight games can still be fun to watch, even if it's more defense heavy than offense heavy. Even if you don't win every game. The problem with this team isn't just the losses. It is the fact that they execute so poorly on both sides of the ball, that the game becomes boring to watch. This just simply isn't good football at all. That is the boring part to me.
Something special was just in the water in Wisconsin when Barry Alvarez started building. The local story is he “built a wall around Wisconsin” and kept all the local kids at home after decades of being a bad program. Call it dairy fed Wisconsin boys, call it whatever you want, they just managed to catch some of kind of lightning (eh… what’s the brawny version of lightning) in a bottle and rode that culture for nearly three decades. An amazing accomplishment that pretty much only one school in the country at a time achieves.
I agree with the run blocking currently. I think it was actually decent to solid at the start of the year, but injuries have really scrambled up the line. I think with competent QB play and receivers that post even a slight downfield threat, this line has great success against 7 man boxes. Vs 8 or 9 in the box as we’ve seen… well, there’s only 5 linemen on the field at a time.
I think it’s telling that Michigan only finally beat Ohio State when they actually took the training wheels off their own offense and unleashed the ball downfield last year. I’ll be floored if Michigan can win this year without having a strong passing attack again next week. It strikes me as risky to keep that element of the offense on the shelf every week and then expect it to just be there when they finally need it. Hell, it damn near cost them huge last week vs Illinois when they faced a team that could actually bog them down.
Yeah, their offense was essentially just playing at the line of scrimmage once Corum went out. Without those RBs, they were throwing mostly short passes and relying a lot on receivers to get significant yardage after reception.
I highly doubt that will work much against Ohio State or any CFP quality team. It'll work against lesser competition to move the ball in the center of the field, but the offense will bog down in the red zone once there's not much space to get that yardage after reception (as Michigan's did; just settling for FGs).
I would guess that our raw rushing numbers have also suffered from playing from behind all year.
And also, the NU running game actually has not been good, but we don’t realize that.
Hull is at 4.3 ypc, and Porter at 3.3. But they looked great in Dublin.
Wait.... I may not be remembering correctly, but I am pretty sure that Michigan beat Ohio State last year because they ran for like 300 yards against them.
Either way, this game next Saturday will be fascinating, pitting a UM team that runs great but can't pass and an OSU team that passes great but can't run. The difference may end up being that I think UM's defense is a little better, but we'll see.
Sadly, my main memory of Porter from this year will be him running into a wall at the line of scrimmage from the wildcat formation.
I think Fitz will figure it out. He needs a few more years and he will get things going again. You people think its so easy to run a program with all of the academic restrictions and limited resources he has at NU.
Really when I say “unleashed the ball downfield” what I’m talking about is generating explosive plays. Mostly people do this by passing the ball downfield, but obviously you can do it other ways. You need lots of explosive plays to win at a high level in modern CFB. If you can get those explosions just by running the ball, good on yah… but that’s really hard.
Anyway, while certainly Michigan’s overall offense remained run and physicality focused last year vs Ohio State, they also added an explosive element they’d been badly missing. They had 7 plays over 20 yards in that game, of which 5 came via passes and 2 via runs. Michigan has been physical for years, but IMO their more aggressive style and achieving explosive plays, aka supporting their run game with explosive passes, was what finally broke their 8 year OsU losing streak.
As it were, even in a game Michigan won comfortably, OSU still managed 6 explosion plays of their own. Keeping OSU down all day is nearly impossible, you can’t JUST keep them down all day, you gotta be able to throw some haymakers back!
Not trying to put words in your mouth but it seems you equate sucking with being boring. If that is the definition we agree to use, then I agree. But I thought most people thought boring meant a low scoring defensive slog and exciting meant something Mike Leach would be coaching. Maybe I misunderstood where people were coming from.
I can only speak for myself, but if more people would let me speak for them, they’d be right more often.
You mean unleashing all those plays that we saw in the subsequent B1G games?
If I'm not mistaken, we ran it up the gut on 1st down a bunch during both of those games and even tried some 3 yard outs on 3rd and 8, so I don't know where you are going with this.
Perhaps, you're talking about the Wildcat where we never pass the ball and everyone knows what is going to happen, even as the opponent stacks 9 in the box to stop it. I'm pretty certain you're right that Fitz regrets not unleashing that one, as it would have made all the difference in the world /s
I don't think they are mutually exclusive. We suck and we are boring. And I don't think its a coincidence either.
