Monday, September 18, 2006
Game Planning, and other questions regarding Nebraska vs USC
Well, I've had 24 hours to digest Saturday's game. Thoughts:
-Bill Callahan's game plan. Obviously the most discussed and argued aspect of the game. Certainly during and after the game, the overwhelming reaction of myself and everyone else at the shower was "GET GOING!" It was incredibly frustrating and disappointing to watch us run dive plays the entire game. It was made even more frustrating when the one drive that we scored a touchdown on, Zac Taylor opened up the offense, threw to a tight end, and did a great job of moving the ball down the field. Where was this the entire game?
I understand that Coach was following the Fresno State model, but man, does that guy stick to a game plan. It felt like the 70-10 Texas Tech game again, only we kept running instead of passing. We had one scoring drive. We passed. We scored. We looked good doing it. Where the hell was it the rest of the game? What good is it to have an All-Big XII caliber quarterback and use him 16 times the entire game? What good is it to have a big play tight end, a big play wideout, and three or four great possession receivers and not throw to them?
It is so frustrating. Yet at the same time, the Lucky fumble after we came out in the second half and stuffed USC was crushing. So was Lucky's big run that got called back. And Taylor's fumble (we're lucky he didn't get a concussion on that play; I would credit the o-line for that fumble, not Zac). But why would we come up with the ballsiest play in the world--a fake punt pass, thrown by the punter, fairly deep in our territory--and follow it up with two straight running plays (or was it three)? Good Christ, you've got them on their heels, take a chance and throw it downfield. You let your punter do it with Todd Peterson-why not let your quarterback do it with Mo Purify?
-Where the hell was Cody Glenn? Oh, and Brandon Jackson is a good player, too.
-Where was Steve Octavian...again? Is this still class related, or is it health, or both? If it is class-related, I applaud the coaches for doing what is right. That said, I sure wish he would have been on the field the whole game.
-Why didn't we go with more zone coverage at the beginning of the game?
-The biggest thing was--and this goes back to the first point--Seger and I both felt that we played not to lose too badly. That is depressing and dispicable. I know that it was all part of the game plan, but the way we just ran the ball and didn't use any timeouts at the end of the first half--that felt like such a "hey, we're just happy to be here, and we hope we don't get beaten too badly" approach. This is Nebraska. This is a proud program. I think that most Nebraska fans would feel a lot better about getting beaten by 20-30 with us throwing our entire offense at them and taking chances as opposed to averaging less than 2 yards a carry and sticking with the gameplan even when we still only had 3 points that late into the game.
I also worry about a lot of harsh feelings in that locker room afterwards--Lucky not seeing the field again after that fumble, Glenn playing (I believe) one DOWN the entire game, Jax not getting any play, Octavian not seeing the field, Purify not hardly playing at all, Zac not getting to throw the ball...this is going to be a pretty solid test to see how well Callahan and the staff can keep this team together. He did it last year, through embarrassing losses, to see it all come together at the end. It better be that way this season, too.
USC was a chance to change the program. Let's hope it doesn't have a negative effect after all this.
-Bill Callahan's game plan. Obviously the most discussed and argued aspect of the game. Certainly during and after the game, the overwhelming reaction of myself and everyone else at the shower was "GET GOING!" It was incredibly frustrating and disappointing to watch us run dive plays the entire game. It was made even more frustrating when the one drive that we scored a touchdown on, Zac Taylor opened up the offense, threw to a tight end, and did a great job of moving the ball down the field. Where was this the entire game?
I understand that Coach was following the Fresno State model, but man, does that guy stick to a game plan. It felt like the 70-10 Texas Tech game again, only we kept running instead of passing. We had one scoring drive. We passed. We scored. We looked good doing it. Where the hell was it the rest of the game? What good is it to have an All-Big XII caliber quarterback and use him 16 times the entire game? What good is it to have a big play tight end, a big play wideout, and three or four great possession receivers and not throw to them?
It is so frustrating. Yet at the same time, the Lucky fumble after we came out in the second half and stuffed USC was crushing. So was Lucky's big run that got called back. And Taylor's fumble (we're lucky he didn't get a concussion on that play; I would credit the o-line for that fumble, not Zac). But why would we come up with the ballsiest play in the world--a fake punt pass, thrown by the punter, fairly deep in our territory--and follow it up with two straight running plays (or was it three)? Good Christ, you've got them on their heels, take a chance and throw it downfield. You let your punter do it with Todd Peterson-why not let your quarterback do it with Mo Purify?
-Where the hell was Cody Glenn? Oh, and Brandon Jackson is a good player, too.
-Where was Steve Octavian...again? Is this still class related, or is it health, or both? If it is class-related, I applaud the coaches for doing what is right. That said, I sure wish he would have been on the field the whole game.
-Why didn't we go with more zone coverage at the beginning of the game?
-The biggest thing was--and this goes back to the first point--Seger and I both felt that we played not to lose too badly. That is depressing and dispicable. I know that it was all part of the game plan, but the way we just ran the ball and didn't use any timeouts at the end of the first half--that felt like such a "hey, we're just happy to be here, and we hope we don't get beaten too badly" approach. This is Nebraska. This is a proud program. I think that most Nebraska fans would feel a lot better about getting beaten by 20-30 with us throwing our entire offense at them and taking chances as opposed to averaging less than 2 yards a carry and sticking with the gameplan even when we still only had 3 points that late into the game.
I also worry about a lot of harsh feelings in that locker room afterwards--Lucky not seeing the field again after that fumble, Glenn playing (I believe) one DOWN the entire game, Jax not getting any play, Octavian not seeing the field, Purify not hardly playing at all, Zac not getting to throw the ball...this is going to be a pretty solid test to see how well Callahan and the staff can keep this team together. He did it last year, through embarrassing losses, to see it all come together at the end. It better be that way this season, too.
USC was a chance to change the program. Let's hope it doesn't have a negative effect after all this.
Comments:
<< Home
Good comments GA. All of those things combine to emphasize the fact that Nebraska had an outstanding opportunity to win that game. USC was a better team and had better talent at many key positions, however, they played flat. Had we been able to let the offense fly we could have made that a better game. All the running slowed the game down to much and burned to much time (why did BC elect to run the clock out at the end of the 2nd instead of going for a quick strike). USC was obviously going to score 20+ points. Had we recognized that and decided to use a faster attack with more passes the outcome could have been different.
The one plus side is that for all the questionable decisions I didn't think Nebraska looked that horrible against a team they were 3 TD underdogs. The way things are shaping up if Nebraska gets back to throwing the ball 30 times a game they have a good shot at winning a seemingly weak big 12. And hey at least CU is 0-3 and OU lost.
The one plus side is that for all the questionable decisions I didn't think Nebraska looked that horrible against a team they were 3 TD underdogs. The way things are shaping up if Nebraska gets back to throwing the ball 30 times a game they have a good shot at winning a seemingly weak big 12. And hey at least CU is 0-3 and OU lost.
I thought that the game plan of pounding the ball initially was a good one. Billy C knew that we didn't have the athletes in the secondary and the more possessions USC had the more they were going to get looks down the field. They had mismatches all over the place.
However when we were down in the second half I felt like we should have tried to get the ball down the field. To me it doesn't matter if we lose 28-10 or 45-10, we looked horrible.
As far as the team being down, I hope that's not the case because at this point if we played USC 10 times we would lose 10. They are better in every aspect of the game. I've accepted this and moved on.
Some positives:
1. Our linebackers are going to wreak havoc against Big 12 offenses. They looked decent against a team like USC, they'll kill in the Big 12.
2. The secondary is bad, but the front seven can hide some of that, especially in the Big 12 North.
3. The NU-Mizzou game is actually going to be a fantastic late season home game.
4. We can circle the wagons with KU and Troy and regain some confidence.
However when we were down in the second half I felt like we should have tried to get the ball down the field. To me it doesn't matter if we lose 28-10 or 45-10, we looked horrible.
As far as the team being down, I hope that's not the case because at this point if we played USC 10 times we would lose 10. They are better in every aspect of the game. I've accepted this and moved on.
Some positives:
1. Our linebackers are going to wreak havoc against Big 12 offenses. They looked decent against a team like USC, they'll kill in the Big 12.
2. The secondary is bad, but the front seven can hide some of that, especially in the Big 12 North.
3. The NU-Mizzou game is actually going to be a fantastic late season home game.
4. We can circle the wagons with KU and Troy and regain some confidence.
I'm pissed, i just wrote a great long response for this thread and the f'ing thing timed out and didn't post....
in a nut shell...Our WR's can't get off the damn line of scrimmage and our OL couldn't keep Taylor in the pocket in max protection situations...don't mind the play calling because i want ZT healthy for the end of the year.
This season is not going to be defined by a loss to USC...this season will be defined by not losing games you are supposed to win (i.e KU, Mizzou, CU, KSU) and or winning a big game (i.e. UT, Big xii title game, or a big bowl game).
PS Anybody want to bet that Cody Glenn gets 15 touches at least against Troy?
in a nut shell...Our WR's can't get off the damn line of scrimmage and our OL couldn't keep Taylor in the pocket in max protection situations...don't mind the play calling because i want ZT healthy for the end of the year.
This season is not going to be defined by a loss to USC...this season will be defined by not losing games you are supposed to win (i.e KU, Mizzou, CU, KSU) and or winning a big game (i.e. UT, Big xii title game, or a big bowl game).
PS Anybody want to bet that Cody Glenn gets 15 touches at least against Troy?
oh i forgot the things i didn't like...
-ok so we can't protect long enough to throw vertically and our WR can't get off the jam to run short timing routes...but damn it play action to TE's should have been ran, i was sick of seeing their safeties 4 yds. off the LOS.
-what's with Cosgrove really thinking our WR's could be put on an island against that group of WR?????
Post a Comment
-ok so we can't protect long enough to throw vertically and our WR can't get off the jam to run short timing routes...but damn it play action to TE's should have been ran, i was sick of seeing their safeties 4 yds. off the LOS.
-what's with Cosgrove really thinking our WR's could be put on an island against that group of WR?????
<< Home
Term Papers
