[Husker] What would it take to get you excited about the Huskers?

[Mark Landin]

On 8/21/05, Steve Reichenbach <reich at inetnebr.com> wrote:
> Last year's record wasn't just the players' fault, as suggested by
> this post, and the questions to be answered, which the Mark Landin
> seems to dismiss as just not having good players, will be very much
> at issue this year.  

Well let's look at these issues:

1. How the QB gets the play. I didn't feel like that really had
anything to do with whether we won or lost all that much, but the
person who mentioned it apparently did, so I explained why I thought
there was reason to think that may not be the method used.

2. Cornerback strategy. This coaching strategy was in fact a key
factor in our W-L record. I guess it is possible that our defensive
coaches are so incompetent that they kept forgetting to notice that a
10-yard cushion will typically yield an easy first down on 3rd-and-5.
A more plausible explanation is that they felt that playing more press
coverage even more risky, and that giving up a long play was ni the
long run worse than giving up just a first down. About the only thing
that makes press coverage more risky is that your corner can't recover
and catch up if the receiver gets behind them. I surmised that that
was indeed the case, sincethe alternative explanation is that I am
smarter than our coaching staff. That is a subjective opinion, of
course.

3. I am not privy to what adjustments were devised, discussed,
attempted, or what-have-you. Again, to assume that no adjustments were
attempted implies that our coaching staff is monumentally dense. Since
even the average Husker fan, with no coaching experience, can notice
that adjustments needed to be made, and that our coaches presumably
know more about football than we do, I again have the subjective
opinion that the coaches did make the adjustments they thought would
be effective.
NU did not have inferior player's compared to

4. Take advantage of weaknesses. We tried. We failed. After our first
few games, teams decided to load up against the run and make NU beat
them throwing. When we tried to attack this apparent pass defense
weakness, in many cases we were unsuccessful. I anticipate that if
teams do that again (which I expect), Callahan will again try to throw
against 8-in-a-box schemes. I hope, and have reason to expect, a
higher success rate this year.

5. FB carries. That one was somewhat of a reach, so I didn't really
address it. I can here: running the fullback more would not have
materially affected the outcome of our season. Again, that's my
relatively uninformed opinion, and I may be very wrong.


> NU did not have inferior player's compared to 6 of the 11 teams NU faced last year.  

Agreed. I think OU and CU probably had better athletes. I think NU's
players did not play up to their potential, for a couple of reasons
I'll get into below.

> NU will have players at
> least as good as all but perhaps one team this year and a favorable
> home schedule.  

Agree there too.

> I am hopeful that the coaches will do a better job
> than they did last year and NU will win at least 8 games.  

I'm always for improved performance from every part of the team, from
coaches to tutors to cooks to players to equipment managers. I am
hopeful for even more than 8 wins!

> If they
> don't, these questions won't have been answered well.

Oh, I dunno. I think Callahan could run the plays in via receivers and
we could still only win 5 games. Would that count as "answered well"?

I did not say we didn't have good players. We had some very good
players, and some who were fantastic. However, our QB play was
inadequate. There's no other way to describe it. There were far too
many missed open receivers and poor decisions. Now, Joe Dailey is a
super athlete who gave heart and soul, from what I could see, and I
don't hate him or call him a coward for transferring or anything like
that at all. But JD did not have the skills to execute the kind of
offensive game plan the coaches were implementing. That's not Joe's
fault ... when he was recruited, it was as an option quarterback with
some workable passing skills. Instead, he was asked to be a
hyper-accurate pocket passer in a much more intricate passing offense.
Now, that was a calculated risk by the coaches: a wholesale switch to
a West Coast philosophy without a QB who is suited for that task was
much more risky than trying to implement some kind of power option /
passing hybrid. And the coaches have said as much. They took the risk
of the wholesale switch to, in effect, absorb all of the pain of such
a transition in a single season, and hopefully come into the next
season that much farther ahead on their plan than doing it "slow and
easy". Now, you can certainly fault the coaches for that choice if you
wish.

I can't, and wasn't trying to, fault the players for not trying or not
playing hard ... except for perhaps those few individuals who never
bought into the system, particularly on defense (and those players
have intimated as much since the season ended). Those players were
asked to make a difficult transition, under circumstances where a
popular coach was basically "ousted", another popular coach was given
the cold shouler, a protracted and at times very dramatic coaching
search went much longer than was expected, a total fundamental system
change, and the resultant bitter feelings in a lot of the fan base
about how the whole situation transpired probably didn't help the
team's mental state either. Again, this is not the players' "fault",
so I can't "blame" them. All I'm saying is I think we will see better
execution from basically every position. And that will translate into
wins.

Many people close to the program, from former coaches who were there
at the time, to former players with access to the program, indicated
that the overall talent level of the team was not as high as perhaps
we had become accustomed over the last 10 years. Certainly, players
like Cory Ross, Matt Herian, LeKevin Smith, and Stewart Bradley could
likely start on any team in our conference. But perhaps what was
lacking was across-the-board depth. For instance, lack of depth on the
DL, especially after an injury or two, basically meant Smith and Adams
played practically every snap. They were too gassed in the 4th quarter
to be effective, but Blake apparently felt he had little choice but to
play them that way. I think our recent recruiting success is going to
help address depth problems in many areas.

And there's that last ingredient: conditioning. The players themselves
say how much stronger, faster, and durable they feel after a year in
Kennedy's system. Spring conditioning measurements see to agree.
Again, I think that's going to translate into better player
performance, and that's going to lead to more success.