Bored with Numbers: Re-evaluating the Hornibrook Line

Getting back to the good old days of Wisconsin football is what we all want, right? Grounding and pounding our opponents into submission, and asserting dominance at the line of scrimmage while watching the opposition crumble under the weight of a relentless rushing attack. That’s the Wisconsin way. That’s Barry Ball. That’s what put Wisconsin football on the map and made the Badgers a team opponents dreaded playing in November.

But you know what’s never been a part of that equation? Exceptional quarterback play.

We all remember that one magical season with Russell Wilson where it looked like we had finally cracked the code and had a glimpse at what life could be like if Wisconsin had a QB that could actually sling it with the best of them. But outside of 2011 Wisconsin quarterbacks have been consistently and painfully average at best, and downright abysmal at worst.

I can hear many of you through your computers. Calling me a Paul Chryst hater telling me that I don't know what made Wisconsin football great. Let’s take a look at the numbers, because this isn’t just me looking through Air Raid tinted glasses. From Joel Stave to Graham Mertz and every full-time Badger starting quarterback inbetween have collectively averaged 2,058 yards, a 58% completion percentage, 13 touchdowns, and 11 interceptions in Big Ten play. That translates to a 126.3 Quarterback Efficiency Rating which put into perspective would’ve been 92nd in the nation in 2024 numbers.

92nd.

Now if your team is trotting out the 92nd-best quarterback in the country that should spell disaster, right? No way that team is sniffing major bowl games, let alone winning divisions or competing for conference titles. And yet, those Wisconsin teams did win. They did play in Big Ten Championships (and win a couple). They did make NY6 bowls.

So how?

Well their names were Montee Ball, James White, Melvin Gordon, and Jonathan Taylor.

Turns out when you have generational running backs, record breaking, All-American, 1st round draft pick, and All-Pro running backs you don’t need a great quarterback. Hell you don’t even need an average quarterback. You just need someone who can hand the ball off and not actively lose you games.

When you’ve got a guy in the backfield averaging 138 yards per game (which, by the way, would’ve been third in the nation in 2024), you don’t need to worry about throwing for 300 yards. You just lean on the guy who can carry your entire offense on his back, and more often than not it worked.

I have harped on this point since the inception of the Dairy Raid as both the reason for the rise and the fall of Wisconsin football. The reason why we could dominate back in the day in the old B1G West and yet can't beat the good teams anymore especially in the offensively rejuvenated B1G. This got me thinking. Is the “Hornibrook Line” strictly a Wisconsin thing? Is it possible to build an offense solely on the back of a bell cow running back and succeed?

Time to dive into the numbers and ask some questions.

I took a look at the top quarterbacks and running backs from the 2024 season and compared their success to their teammates at the other position. The questions are: When you have an elite quarterback, what kind of production do you get from your lead running back? And when you have an elite running back, what kind of quarterback play do you need to win? And what happens when you take away the bread winner?

Using official NCAA stats from 2024, here’s what I found:

Let's start by comparing the nations top QBs and RBs, their statistics and the production of their counterpart teammates.

The Top 10 QBs (by Quarterback Efficiency Rating) in 2024:

• Averaged: 275 completions on 394 attempts for 3,633 yards, 31 TDs, and 8 INTs

• Average Quarterback Efficiency Rating: 168.58

• Their lead RBs averaged: 930 yards on 172 carries (5.4 ypc) and 10 TDs

• Won 100 games and lost 35

The Top 10 RBs (by rushing yards per game) in 2024:

Now, this list gets a little skewed because Ashton Jeanty put up video-game numbers, but Badgers backs have had similar stat lines in the past, so we’re rolling with it.

• Averaged: 1,666 yards on 281 carries (5.9 ypc) and 22 TDs

• Their QBs averaged: 189 completions on 317 attempts for 2,406 yards, 17 TDs, and 7 INTs

• Average Quarterback Efficiency Rating: 137.29

• Won 85 games and lost 45

What about when these elite players lost? I found it interesting that when I looked at the numbers when the top 10 QBs lost their efficiency ratings still held up to 85% of their season averages (144.9) and their losses were more attributed to defensive failures and turnovers. But when the feature backs lost? They only averaged 60% of the rushing yards (101.4) and TDs.

The Conclusion - Does It Hold Up?

Even in modern football, the correlation between success and the presence of either an elite running back or a top-tier quarterback remains undeniable. The numbers show that teams can still thrive with mediocre quarterback play as long as they have a dominant run game. But just as you can ride a dominant rushing attack to success an over reliance on it can lead to true failure.

Is it arrogance, predictability or the lack of foresight for teams like Wisconsin that has lead an over reliance on the run without answers to when defenses can out athlete or out coach to victory. This strategy worked when they had transcendent running backs like Jonathan Taylor and Melvin Gordon, players capable of shouldering the offensive burden and keeping the Badgers competitive. However, as soon as the caliber of backfield talent declined, the entire offensive structure crumbled. The absence of a game-changing quarterback left them without a viable fallback option, and their predictable, run-heavy attack became easier for defenses to shut down.

Whether you agree with him or not Luke Fickell recognized this shortcoming. I will fully admit Phil Longo was an extreme (and also the wrong) solution to this problem, but the problem still exists. Wisconsin is now taking a step back to take two steps forward in the evolution of their offensive philosophy by attempting to modernize and create a more balanced attack while having an eye on what made the program great.

But the Badgers can only hope to keep pace with the ever-changing landscape of college football without continuing the push the boundaries of what "Wisconsin football" is. Which brings us back to the tired idea of balance. Balance is ability to dictate the flow of a game by having answers to defensive strategy. Some might see balance as a reactionary strategy, but I see it as an efficient strategy. College football is not going backwards. By all means bring an old school mentality to your offense, but with the understanding that the true goal of an offense is to score points...period.

I look forward to Jeff Grimes bringing the ground and pound back to Wisconsin and who knows we might have the next Jonathan Taylor already on the roster. But time will tell if he has the answers to the questions defenses have been posing to the Badgers for decades.