The success of the Terrapins football offense has been predicated largely on one thing: establishing the running game.
Yes, quarterback C.J. Brown avoiding turnovers and delivering accurate throws is crucial. Coach Randy Edsall likes to discuss the importance of pass protection. And the team struggled last week at Wisconsin when it committed untimely penalties.
But above all else, the offense’s effectiveness this season has relied on cementing a consistent ground attack. And look no further than Saturday’s 52-7 loss to the Badgers as proof. The Terps compiled 46 rushing yards on 28 carries as part of their worst performance on the ground this season.
So entering this weekend’s bout at Penn State, which boasts the Big Ten’s best run defense at 83.4 yards allowed per game, the Terps have made a point in practice to increase focus — something center Sal Conaboy said was lacking substantially against the Badgers.
“This week has been probably the best that I’ve seen everyone gelling with the communication between us and C.J. and the running backs and the wide receivers,” Conaboy said Wednesday. “I’ve been impressed yesterday and today how bad people want it and how good everyone’s clicking.”
According to offensive coordinator Mike Locksley, Wisconsin’s defensive scheme played a major part in its ability to shut down the Terps’ rushing attack.
The Badgers brought pressure all game, sacking Brown twice while adding seven tackles for losses. But it wasn’t the pressure itself that resulted in the Terps’ pitfalls. It was also the coverage.
Wisconsin played man-to-man behind its blitzes — a scheme Locksley said can usually be exploited with perimeter option plays. However, Brown and the offense failed to execute, and whether it was the sixth-year signal-caller, running backs Brandon Ross and Wes Brown or wide receiver Stefon Diggs, the Terps’ runners simply couldn’t beat the Wisconsin linebackers and perimeter defenders to the outside.
Granted, the best way to overcome pressure and blitzes is to throw the football. But the man coverage gave Brown tighter windows to fit passes to his receivers, which resulted in a 13 of 29 passing day from the quarterback.
Penn State has a similarly aggressive defense. However, it differs from Wisconsin in that the unit plays zone behind its blitzes, which Locksley said provides Brown with easier opportunities to complete passes.
“The big thing is that it comes down to our ability to execute under fire,” Locksley said.
The weather forecast for Saturday in University Park, Pennsylvania, though, projects wet conditions and sub-50-degree temperatures, which could likely stymie the passing games of both squads.
“I like those games,” Conaboy said. “If it is rainy and snowy … then we’ve just got to come out and do our thing up front and get after it.”
After last week’s loss to Wisconsin, the Terps rushing attack dropped to No. 11 in the Big Ten at 137.5 yards per game. The Terps’ 3.9 yards per carry average, meanwhile, ranks 10th in the conference.
Statistic rankings aside, though, the Terps have shown flashes of brilliance with their rushing attack — they compiled 212 yards on the ground in a win over Iowa two weeks ago — and it often correlates with wins.
In the Terps’ five victories this season, they’ve averaged 165 rushing yards per game and more than four yards per carry.
In losses, they’ve averaged 91.67 yards per game and less than 3.5 yards per carry. Take away the close defeat at the hands of West Virginia on Sept. 13, and those figures become 56 yards per game and 2.67 yards per carry.
And while it’s true the Terps have been forced to throw significantly more in losses, especially considering the massive early-game deficits against Ohio State, the Badgers and the Mountaineers, the difference of more than 0.5 yards per carry between wins and losses speaks to the importance of the team’s rushing attack.
“I don’t know why some games we come out and have a strong focus and do well, and then other games come out and not really [execute],” Conaboy said. “It’s something that we’ve been working on — being consistent.”
