Team Rushing Stats By Quarter

[SmellyCat]

Stanford
1 - 8 for 55
2 - 17 for 76
3 - 16 for 42
4 - 12 for 52 (when not in victory formation: 10 for 54)

EIU
1 - 20 for 85
2 - 23 for 104
3 - 5 for 17
4 - 21 for 138

Duke
1 - 12 for 13
2 - 8 for 6
3 - 14 for 54
4 - 20 for 128 (when not in victory formation: 17 for 135)

So, altogether...
1 - 40 for 153 (3.8 ypc)
2 - 48 for 186 (3.9 ypc)
3 - 35 for 113 (3.3 ypc)
4 - 53 for 318 (6.0 ypc)

What does it mean? I don't know. I'll leave that to you guys. What we talked about is that Duke and Stanford wore down in the fourth quarter and I wanted to see if it were true. Certainly looks like that for Duke.

And I hate that sacks are considered rushing statistics in college football and not in the NFL.

 

[mybrotha]

Stanford
1 - 8 for 55
2 - 17 for 76
3 - 16 for 42
4 - 12 for 52 (when not in victory formation: 10 for 54)

EIU
1 - 20 for 85
2 - 23 for 104
3 - 5 for 17
4 - 21 for 138

Duke
1 - 12 for 13
2 - 8 for 6
3 - 14 for 54
4 - 20 for 128 (when not in victory formation: 17 for 135)

So, altogether...
1 - 40 for 153 (3.8 ypc)
2 - 48 for 186 (3.9 ypc)
3 - 35 for 113 (3.3 ypc)
4 - 53 for 318 (6.0 ypc)

What does it mean? I don't know. I'll leave that to you guys. What we talked about is that Duke and Stanford wore down in the fourth quarter and I wanted to see if it were true. Certainly looks like that for Duke.

And I hate that sacks are considered rushing statistics in college football and not in the NFL.

I would say it means that Fitz has our guys in great shape! We've been ahead in all three games in the fourth so they we are going to run it and can't stop us.

 

[Hungry Jack]

We ran the ball 43 time IN ONE HALF vs. EIU.

That's mind-boggling to me.

And 34 times vs. Duke in the 2nd half is pretty cool too.

 

[rmndcat]

Stanford
1 - 8 for 55
2 - 17 for 76
3 - 16 for 42
4 - 12 for 52 (when not in victory formation: 10 for 54)

EIU
1 - 20 for 85
2 - 23 for 104
3 - 5 for 17
4 - 21 for 138

Duke
1 - 12 for 13
2 - 8 for 6
3 - 14 for 54
4 - 20 for 128 (when not in victory formation: 17 for 135)

So, altogether...
1 - 40 for 153 (3.8 ypc)
2 - 48 for 186 (3.9 ypc)
3 - 35 for 113 (3.3 ypc)
4 - 53 for 318 (6.0 ypc)

What does it mean? I don't know. I'll leave that to you guys. What we talked about is that Duke and Stanford wore down in the fourth quarter and I wanted to see if it were true. Certainly looks like that for Duke.

And I hate that sacks are considered rushing statistics in college football and not in the NFL.

Maybe it does mean we are wearing them down as each half goes on, with the greatest impact in the second half. It also means our D gets to rest later in the game.

 

[phatcat]

There is nothing quite so comforting (nor frustrating for the opposition) than being able to run the ball in the 4th quarter with a lead. It is like the old 4 corner offense in basketball. We don't have a shot clock, so...

Fitz tends towards Tressel-ball anyway, but has only had the horses to do it during a couple of years.

 

[DonatelloCat]

Stanford
1 - 8 for 55
2 - 17 for 76
3 - 16 for 42
4 - 12 for 52 (when not in victory formation: 10 for 54)

EIU
1 - 20 for 85
2 - 23 for 104
3 - 5 for 17
4 - 21 for 138

Duke
1 - 12 for 13
2 - 8 for 6
3 - 14 for 54
4 - 20 for 128 (when not in victory formation: 17 for 135)

So, altogether...
1 - 40 for 153 (3.8 ypc)
2 - 48 for 186 (3.9 ypc)
3 - 35 for 113 (3.3 ypc)
4 - 53 for 318 (6.0 ypc)

What does it mean? I don't know. I'll leave that to you guys. What we talked about is that Duke and Stanford wore down in the fourth quarter and I wanted to see if it were true. Certainly looks like that for Duke.

And I hate that sacks are considered rushing statistics in college football and not in the NFL.

for the duke game, the long run (in both senses of the word!) on 3rd and short skews the statistics quite a bit. obviously, you can't cherry pick what runs you want to include and it certainly wasn't a fluke or anything like that . . . but i do think we should keep it in consideration before drawing too dramatic of a conclusion about wearing them out.

that being said, i do think we have been wearing defenses out, and even taking that run out of the picture, we still see that pattern, just to a lesser extent.

 

[SmellyCat]

Yeah, I hate when people cherry-pick. My favorite is one time when Barry Sanders got like 200 yards against the Bears, Dave Wannstedt said something like "if you take away those three long runs, we stopped him today." Actually, I think someone here said the same thing about Melvin Gordon last year.

Still, if you want to cherry-pick, let's take out Long's run and the three victory formation ones. That's four carries for 48 yards, meaning in normal circumstances on Saturday, Northwestern was 16 for 80 in the fourth quarter, which is still really good, especially when the other team is sure the run is coming. Duke had no problems stopping the run in the first half, but as the game went on, NU got better and better.

First-quarter runs, in order: 9, 2, -2, -2, 6, -6, 6, 8, 2, 2, 1, -13
Second-quarter runs, in order: 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, -1, 1, -2
Third-quarter runs, in order: 4, 4, 7, 4, 20, -6, 2, 4, 5, 1, 4, 0, 0, 5
Fourth-quarter runs, in order: 6, 3, 6, 55, 11, -2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 8, 9, 3, 6, 11, VF: -1, -5, -1.

That second quarter: ecch.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Yeah, I hate when people cherry-pick. My favorite is one time when Barry Sanders got like 200 yards against the Bears, Dave Wannstedt said something like "if you take away those three long runs, we stopped him today." Actually, I think someone here said the same thing about Melvin Gordon last year.

Still, if you want to cherry-pick, let's take out Long's run and the three victory formation ones. That's four carries for 48 yards, meaning in normal circumstances on Saturday, Northwestern was 16 for 80 in the fourth quarter, which is still really good, especially when the other team is sure the run is coming. Duke had no problems stopping the run in the first half, but as the game went on, NU got better and better.

First-quarter runs, in order: 9, 2, -2, -2, 6, -6, 6, 8, 2, 2, 1, -13
Second-quarter runs, in order: 2, 1, 3, 1, 1, -1, 1, -2
Third-quarter runs, in order: 4, 4, 7, 4, 20, -6, 2, 4, 5, 1, 4, 0, 0, 5
Fourth-quarter runs, in order: 6, 3, 6, 55, 11, -2, 4, 4, 3, 4, 2, 2, 8, 9, 3, 6, 11, VF: -1, -5, -1.

That second quarter: ecch.

It is idiotic to cherry pick. The difference between the 5.0 ypc back and the 3 ypc back is that the former is able to break some long runs.

 

[DaCat]

Also could mean that since we were running so much and wearing them out, Long was able to pop one.

 

[NJCat83588]

Also could mean that since we were running so much and wearing them out, Long was able to pop one.

Except that Fitz said yesterday that Duke blew the coverage. Everyone was up near or on the line of scrimmage and there was no safety deep to prevent a long run. He said he will use that film in their own teaching videos to show his defense how NOT to play a short yardage situation.

 

[Williesfan]

I think want it implies is by pounding the rock early. It results in physical duress late for the opposition defense.

 

[NJCat83588]

I think want it implies is by pounding the rock early. It results in physical duress late for the opposition defense.

I understand the point. But the Long long TD was because Duke played the down wrong. It had nothing to do with getting pounded upon.

 

[KramerCat91]

I understand the point. But the Long long TD was because Duke played the down wrong. It had nothing to do with getting pounded upon.

Duke went all in to stop Long on 3rd and short in part because they were behind, but only by 2, and in part because NU's running game had already gained traction by that time - see the run by run yardage. I think Duke called a risky defensive play and Duke got burned.

 

[GlideCat]

I understand the point. But the Long long TD was because Duke played the down wrong. It had nothing to do with getting pounded upon.

As I tend to say... I don't think it is that simple. Duke had no safety support behind the line and basically had nearly the entire D "in the box." With that alignment, if the O-Line opens a hole and gets the back to the second tier, he is gone. That was the mistake. However, that does not negate the fact that the O-Line opened a big hole against a formation that was stacked against exactly the play that we ran.

That level of success at the point of attack could and probably did result from their D-Line being worn down.

 

[FanatiCat]

I understand the point. But the Long long TD was because Duke played the down wrong. It had nothing to do with getting pounded upon.

One could also argue that they HAD TO bring all their second level defense up precisely because we had worn down their DL and they knew that the front seven were unlikely to be able to push the LOS.

 

[NUCat320]

QUOTE="rmndcat, post: 91031, member: 942"]Maybe it does mean we are wearing them down as each half goes on, with the greatest impact in the second half. It also means our D gets to rest later in the game.[/QUOTE]

For what it's worth, in the two competitive games, NU was significantly better statistically in the first half against Stanford (5.29 ypc v 3.69 ypc), and significantly better in the second half against Duke (0.9 ypc v. 6.1 ypc). So, I mean, it means not so much yet.