[Husker] Callahan play calling (red zone)

[Steve Reichenbach]

> The Husker problems in the red zone were two fold:
> 
> 1. Dropped passes and poor excecution.
> 
If the red zone problems were just an occasional mistake, I'd agree,
but when it becomes a pattern, the play calling is the problem.  It's
like the joke about tearing out the turf and putting down paper
because the West Coast Offense works best on paper.  Passing by its
nature is more hit and miss than running in that even when well-executed
about 40% of the plays go for no gain.

Here are more specific objections.

ISU scores to tie the game early in the second quarter.  NU moves the
ball to the ISU 9.  First down, incomplete pass.  Second down run,
gain of 6.  Third and goal from the 3, incomplete pass.  Fourth and goal
from the 3, missed FG.  Before the FG miss, someone near me asked why
NU didn't run Glenn on 3rd and if he didn't make it then run it again
on fourth down and in the worst case leave ISU inside the five against
the blackshirts.  I think this is a good time to try punching it in
the end-zone from 3 with two power runs --- maybe even start at the 9
with the idea of running it three times and if necessary running it on
fourth down if it is close to the goal.

This one wasn't quite in the red zone, but on its next possession, NU
moves the ball to the 26.  First down, 3 yard pass.  Second down,
incomplete pass.  Third down, incomplete pass.  Fourth and 7 from the
23, 6 yd pass short of the first down.  Why pass up a 40 yd FG attempt
on fourth and 7 after passing up a much better opportunity to go for
a TD from the 3?

Late in the third quarter, NU moves the ball to the ISU 36 and has
a second down with 1 to go.  I can see a pass play down the field,
but NU calls a swing pass behind the line of scrimmage for a 6 yard
loss.  Either take a shot down the field or call a power run to go
for the first down.  Don't call a run sweep or a swing pass that
might go for a loss.

Midway through the fourth quarter, NU moves the ball to the ISU 3.
First down from the 3, Ross up the middle for a loss of 1.  I love
Ross, but he isn't going to be diving over the line or hitting the
line with the force that a bigger back has.  Second down, incomplete
pass.  Third down, Taylor scrambles to the ISU 1.  NU takes an
intentional penalty and settles for a FG from the 6.  Another first
and goal from the 3 and NU doesn't get a TD.

With less than 2 min in the game and the score tied, NU moves the ball
to the ISU 14.  At this point, the NU is in position to kick the
go-ahead FG.  The highest objectives should be no turnover and run down
the clock, which would seem to call for running the ball.  Instead, on
first down, an incomplete pass stops the clock without ISU burning a
time out.  Second down, Ross runs for a 4 and ISU is forced to take a
time out.  Third down, Taylor fumbles and the clock stops again without
ISU burning a time out.  If NU calls three power runs, ISU burns all
their time outs, NU kicks for a FG and ISU gets the ball back with a
little over a minute left.  Instead, NU doesn't score, gives the ball
back to ISU with a minute and a half and 2 timeouts, and ISU moves the
ball into position to win the game.

Don't get me wrong, I have been saying that Taylor has looked better
than his stats have shown and wrote before the game that I thought NU
would get untracked, but I still don't like the play calling when the
team is in position to score.  When Callahan was asked about the other
running backs not getting carries, he said one thing he loved about
this team was that people understood their roles.  First, I hope that
is true, but I think he would say it anyway.  Second, I think running
Ross up the middle on plays from inside the 5 fails to put other players
in roles that they might be better suited to perform.

> 2. The underneath crossing patterns were no longer available.
> 
Of course.