From the Sideline to the Film Room: Indiana’s Grit Was Evident, but Nebraska Exposed Concerns Before Ohio State

Coach Griff’s follow-up to his instant-reaction column: Indiana showed grit in its 20–17 victory at Nebraska, but the PFF grades reinforce concerns about rushing efficiency, offensive-line movement and first-half tackling ahead of Ohio State.

What I Saw Saturday—and What the Grades Tell Us Now

Immediately after Indiana’s 20–17 victory at Nebraska, I wrote that you should never apologize for winning, but that the Hoosiers still had work to do. My instant-reaction column focused on an ineffective running game, an offensive line that struggled to generate movement, too little emphasis on attacking the perimeter and too many missed tackles, particularly in the first half.

Those were observations made while watching the game. The subsequent Pro Football Focus (PFF) positional grades, pass-protection reports and rushing-direction charts allow us to examine them more closely. Several of those concerns are supported by the numbers. At the same time, the film and the result tell us something the statistics cannot fully capture: this Indiana team demonstrated grit, purpose and an ability to respond when the game wasn’t going its way.

Nebraska deserves credit. The Cornhuskers were physical, prepared and creative. Indiana deserves credit, too, for making the plays needed to win a difficult Big Ten road game. But the next opponent is No. 4 Ohio State, and the margin for repeated mistakes is getting smaller.

The Running Game: Not Enough Movement, Not Enough Answers

Indiana managed just 65 official rushing yards on 22 attempts against Nebraska, including only 12 yards in the first half. That was a dramatic departure from the rushing production the Hoosiers established earlier in the season. The offensive line did not consistently displace Nebraska’s front or create the kind of vertical movement needed to sustain an interior running game.

The PFF individual rushing report credited Turbo Richard with eight carries for 10 yards and a 60.8 rushing grade. Lee Beebe Jr. recorded nine carries for 31 yards and a 58.9 grade. Combined, those two backs produced just 41 yards on 17 carries—2.4 yards per attempt. Josh Hoover’s charted scrambling yardage was a significant part of the remaining rushing production.

That is not enough from the running backs against a quality opponent. But I don’t believe the backs alone are the issue. The offensive line’s inability to consistently move defenders at the point of attack was apparent, and the offense didn’t do enough to change Nebraska’s defensive picture.

As I noted in my initial reaction, too much of Indiana’s rushing approach has appeared concentrated between the B gaps. Inside zone and duo are sound concepts. They are not, however, a complete answer when a defensive front is controlling the interior. Indiana needs complementary calls that change blocking angles, create hesitation at the second level and force the defense to defend the width of the field.

The Perimeter Question: Why Not Make Defenses Defend Every Gap?

The PFF rushing-direction report adds context to that observation. On the Nebraska chart, nine carries in the interior areas from middle left through right guard produced just 13 yards—approximately 1.4 yards per carry. By contrast, Indiana’s season-long rushing-direction data show that Turbo Richard has found production toward the edges: 152 yards on 21 runs toward left end, 100 yards on 10 off left tackle and 125 yards on 11 toward right end.

Directional data alone cannot tell us whether a particular play was inside zone, duo, counter, power or another scheme. That determination requires the film. But the numbers do reinforce the question I raised Saturday: Why didn’t Indiana challenge Nebraska’s perimeter more consistently when the inside game wasn’t working?

I would like to see more variation in formations and motion, more perimeter threats, and complementary concepts such as counter or pin-and-pull when the defensive front makes those answers appropriate. Motion involving Charlie Becker or Nick Marsh can influence a defender even when neither player touches the football. A sweep look can widen an overhang player and create space for the next inside run.

The point isn’t to abandon Indiana’s identity. It’s to prevent that identity from becoming predictable. A good offense has a base. A championship offense also has answers when the defense takes away that base.

A Critical Distinction: Pass Protection Was Better Than Run Blocking

One of the most important findings in the PFF material is that the offensive line’s pass-protection grades were considerably stronger than its rushing results. Carter Smith earned an 85.7 pass-blocking grade and was not charged with a pressure on 29 pass-blocking snaps. Joe Brunner graded 78.0, Bray Lynch 76.9 and Adedamola Ajani 71.1. Drew Evans graded 51.8.

PFF’s blocker-attribution report charged Indiana’s pass blockers with four pressures—one quarterback hit and three hurries, but no sacks attributed to individual pass blockers. That is not the profile of a line that was overwhelmed on every passing snap.

Pass blocking and run blocking are different jobs. An offensive lineman can protect the quarterback effectively and still struggle to generate movement against a physical defensive tackle. We should not use the team’s lack of rushing yards as proof that every phase of offensive-line play was poor.

This distinction is particularly important against Ohio State. Indiana needs to preserve what worked in protection while finding a better way to create leverage, movement and rushing efficiency.

Josh Hoover: Keep the Offense Ahead of the Chains

The PFF quarterback pressure split was also revealing. Hoover received a 72.7 passing grade from a clean pocket, compared with 41.6 under pressure. The report credited him with two touchdown passes in clean-pocket situations, while his limited pressured attempts produced no completions.

The pressured sample was small, so it would be a mistake to draw a sweeping conclusion about Hoover from those snaps alone. But the coaching lesson is straightforward: Indiana is more dangerous when its quarterback can operate on time, with a stable pocket and the full playbook available.

That is why early-down efficiency matters so much. When first down produces little or no gain, the defense can anticipate the next call. The offense becomes easier to pressure, and the quarterback is asked to make more difficult throws. I would like to see more movement of Hoover’s launch point, selective boots and sprint-outs, and hard play-action shots tied to credible run looks. Those concepts need to be chosen with protection and defensive structure in mind, not added simply for variety.

Indiana’s fourth-and-one touchdown to Marsh against Nebraska demonstrated how effective a well-timed changeup can be. The offense presented a short-yardage situation, influenced the defense with run action and created the winning touchdown. More of that intentional conflict would make Indiana harder to defend.

First-Half Tackling: A Concern the Final Score Cannot Hide

My biggest defensive concern while watching the game was the tackling, particularly during the first half. Too many Indiana defenders appeared to arrive with an opportunity to finish a play and failed to get the ball carrier on the ground. Some were attempts to tackle without a secure wrap; others involved pursuit or leverage that left the defender in a difficult position.

Nebraska converted eight of 11 third downs in the first half and finished 10 of 19. Those extended possessions were not all caused by missed tackles, and it would be inaccurate to suggest they were. But the combination of tackling errors, quarterback movement and Nebraska’s offensive execution kept Indiana’s defense on the field.

The PFF run-defense report provides additional context. Rolijah Hardy earned an 80.1 run-defense grade; Mario Landino graded 74.1 and Jacob Savage 72.8. Isaiah Jones was credited with five run stops. There was good individual play within the front seven.

In the secondary, however, several run-defense grades were concerning: Amare Ferrell 49.3, Jaylen Bell 52.3, Byron Baldwin Jr. 47.4 and Jamari Sharpe 59.2. The report also identified missed tackles involving defensive backs. These grades are not a substitute for reviewing each assignment, but they support a closer examination of perimeter run support and finishing tackles in space.

The fundamentals aren’t complicated: arrive under control, maintain leverage, wrap, run the feet and rally to the football. Against Ohio State’s receivers, including Jeremiah Smith, poor angles or missed tackles can turn a modest completion into a game-changing explosive play.

Nebraska’s Quarterback Run Game Tested Indiana’s Discipline

Nebraska quarterback Anthony Colandrea also challenged Indiana with movement and designed quarterback runs. His 38-yard touchdown on quarterback counter was an especially clear example of how an extra runner can stress defensive gap responsibilities.

Indiana’s front still generated production. PFF credited the pass rush with 17 pressures, including five sacks, two quarterback hits and 10 hurries. Stephen Daley led the individual pressure totals with five, including two sacks, while Tobi Osunsanmi added three pressures.

But pressure production and rush discipline are not interchangeable. Against a mobile quarterback, defenders must understand who has contain, who is responsible for the interior escape lanes and how the coverage works with the rush. Losing those relationships can create a running lane even on a play that initially looks well defended.

Julian Sayin is a different quarterback. Ohio State’s passing game places more emphasis on accuracy, timing and explosive receiving talent than Nebraska’s designed quarterback-run package. Indiana will need coordinated pressure and disciplined coverage, not merely a collection of individual pass-rush wins.

The Encouraging Part: Indiana Responded With Grit and Purpose

There is a danger in focusing so heavily on what needs correcting that we overlook what Indiana accomplished. The Hoosiers went on the road, struggled to run the football, faced a physical opponent and trailed in the fourth quarter. Yet they continued to compete, made critical plays and came away with a 20–17 victory.

That is not accidental. It reflects preparation, belief and a program that has learned how to handle adversity. The offense found a decisive answer when it mattered. The defense produced the stops required to finish the game. Indiana improved to 6–0 and extended its winning streak to 22 games.

As a coach, I value that response. It is evidence of a team with grit and purpose. But the standard of performance cannot depend solely on whether the final score is favorable. Good teams find ways to win. Great teams also identify what went wrong and address it before the next opponent exposes it again.

Five Corrections Before Ohio State

1. Generate more movement and leverage in the run game. The offensive line must improve its ability to create running lanes, and the play design must help when the defense wins inside.

2. Attack the perimeter with purpose. Motion, formation changes and complementary runs should force Ohio State to defend more than the interior gaps.

3. Win first and second down. Better early-down production protects Hoover, preserves the playbook and limits obvious passing situations.

4. Finish tackles and eliminate avoidable explosive plays. Indiana cannot afford the first-half tackling problems it showed at Nebraska, particularly against Ohio State’s receiving corps.

5. Pair pressure with disciplined assignments. Rush-lane integrity, communication and coverage leverage must work together. An aggressive defense still has to be a sound defense.

Coach Griff’s Final Word: The Standard Doesn’t Change

The best thing about Indiana’s victory over Nebraska is that it revealed something meaningful about the team’s character. The Hoosiers were challenged. They didn’t play their best football. They had to respond to adversity. And they found a way to win.

You never apologize for that.

But the greatest mistake a team can make after a victory is allowing the scoreboard to convince it that everything was executed correctly. Curt Cignetti talks about playing to a standard, not to the circumstances of a game. That standard requires the same honest evaluation after a three-point road victory as it would after a loss.

My initial concerns about the interior rushing game, lack of perimeter stress, offensive-line movement and first-half tackling were not simply reactions to an uncomfortable afternoon. The PFF reports give us additional reasons to study those areas closely.

There are positives in the grades, too, especially the pass protection and several front-seven performances. This was not a team-wide failure. It was a hard-earned win with identifiable weaknesses.

Indiana showed grit and purpose at Nebraska. Now it must turn that resolve into cleaner execution before No. 4 Ohio State arrives in Bloomington.

Because the standard doesn’t change. Only the opponent does.

Fast. Physical. Relentless.

About Coach Griff: A veteran of 28 years coaching college football, including serving as head coach at Manchester University and quarterbacks coach at Ball State University. Lead football analyst for TheHoosier.com and creator and host of Hoosier Football Tailgate.

Statistical note: PFF charting, player grades, pressure attribution and rushing-direction totals use definitions that may differ from official NCAA box-score totals. Grades are scouting tools, not a replacement for film review. Official rushing yardage and the final score are identified separately.

Related reading: Never Apologize for Winning. But Indiana’s Win at Nebraska Leaves Work to Do. | First Look: No. 4 Ohio State