MADISON — Wisconsin’s loss to Alabama in Week 3 was about as soul-crushing as it gets. A 32-point defeat at home, underscored by a season-ending ACL tear to your starting quarterback, will do that.

And yet, there’s an underlying implication that’s even more concerning than the embarrassing margin of defeat. Even more concerning than losing your starting gunslinger. Even more concerning than the fumbles, or the blown coverages, or the missed tackles.

Wisconsin’s offense looked lost at sea. It looked like it doesn’t know what it is, or even what it wants to be.

During the first two games, Wisconsin placed a heavy emphasis on running the football. That directive came from head coach Luke Fickell:

“I’ll be honest with you, the number one thing going in (Week 1) was we wanted to be able to pound the football. We wanted to play physical. We wanted to be able to kind of impose some will and make sure that we get these backs and this line rolling,” he said after the Badgers topped Western Michigan in the opener with an offense that threw the ball downfield exactly once.

While Wisconsin opened up the passing game ever so slightly in Week 2, there was yet again a heavy emphasis on the running game. Against the Crimson Tide, that all went out the window.

One sequence epitomizes it perfectly. Driving into Alabama territory just before halftime, Wisconsin was set up with a third-and-three on the 27 yard-line with a chance to cut the deficit to one score heading into the break. About 40 ticks remained on the clock.

The Badgers elected to throw the ball, with a corner route to the end zone falling just over the outstretched arms of receiver Will Pauling. Fourth down. Nathaniel Vakos trotted on for the field goal, missed wide right, and the Tide took over and promptly scored in two plays. For all intents and purposes — ballgame.

“There’s part of me that says I wish we would’ve ran the football,” Fickell said afterwards. “Obviously that’s second guessing yourself.”

What happened to ‘playing physical?’ What happened to ‘pounding the football?’

It’s all fine and dandy to say you want to run the football. But when you don’t on a critical short-yardage situation, it raises questions about what this offense really is.

Phil Longo is Fickell’s hand-picked offensive play-caller. He’s a disciple of the air raid offense, a philosophy that utilizes spread formations and operates almost exclusively from the shotgun.

That doesn’t scream ‘pound the football,’ ‘impose some will’ or ‘get these backs and this line rolling.'

Now, Longo has run the ball successfully in his career. But from a philosophical, schematic standpoint, Fickell’s newfound mandate to run the ball and impose physicality simply doesn’t match what Longo brings to the table.

There was a perfect example of this clash of ideologies in the 1st quarter. On Wisconsin’s second drive, it marched eight plays to the Alabama 39 yard-line and was faced with a 4th-and-1. The Badgers lined up with two wide receivers to the boundary side, and handed the ball to Tawee Walker…from the shotgun. He was stonewalled for no gain. Turnover on downs.

Yes, Wisconsin ran the ball, but it ran from the shotgun, inherently giving Walker more ground to cover just to get back to the line of scrimmage, let alone move the chains. That play exemplified the split personality disorder ailing the Badgers: Fickell’s desire to run, and Longo’s air raid background.

“Well we still gotta figure that out. It’s still early,” Fickell said in regards to Wisconsin’s identity.

“I think we’re working on it,” right tackle Riley Mahlman agreed.

“I don’t think we’ve had a game where we’ve put it all together yet,” tailback Chez Mellusi lamented.

After the game, Fickell maintained that the Badgers are a running team.

“I think we can run the football, I think we can do some things up front, offensive line-wise, that gives us a chance,” the coach insisted. Unsurprisingly, given how much emphasis he’s placed on the run game early in the season, his players echoed those comments.

“We’re definitely gonna be able to run the ball. I think we can do better at that, but I think we’re gonna start with the run and work off that,” Mahlman said.

“I mean, I think we’re really good at running the football,” Mellusi mused. “I think, we’re at Wisconsin, we can run the football really well.”

Ask around, and you wouldn’t hesitate for a second to call the Badgers a run-first team. But look at their play-calls, their formations, their offensive scheme, their large investment on a big-name transfer portal quarterback, and you might have second thoughts.

Longo, who spoke to the media a week ago, asserted that he’s fine with straying from his own personal offensive tendencies if it means winning the game.

“If we’re gonna be a little less explosive, or a little more conservative, or a little more efficient to win a game, that’s what we’re gonna do,” he said.

He followed that up with a telling comment: “I’m here to please Coach Fickell.”

Longo sounds like a coordinator who, via a decree from his head coach, is begrudgingly learning a new language. ‘Less explosive’ and ‘more conservative’ aren’t in the air raid vocabulary.

Fickell wants to run the ball down teams’ throats. Longo’s offensive schemes and formations are conducive to essentially the exact opposite. It’s one thing to fail while being unapologetically yourself. It’s another thing to fail because you can’t decide who you really are.

_________________________________________________

*Chat about this article in The Badgers' Den

*Check out our videos, interviews, and Q&As on our YouTube channel

*Subscribe and listen to the BadgerBlitz.com podcast (as seen on Apple, Google, Spotify and wherever you listen to podcasts)

*Follow us on Twitter: @McNamaraRivals, @TheBadgerNation, @RaulV45, @seamus_rohrer, @DonnieSlusher_

*Like us on Facebook