[Husker] Frustration . . . .

[Michael Petersen]

I think way too much pressure was put on Taylor by passing as much as we 
did. We completely went away from the run and OU could key on the pass with 
us in the shotgun.

Maybe Taylor should not have been called upon to pass 50 times with the 
quality of running backs that we have. We weren't down by enough to justify 
scrapping a running game. I would have been happy with a 30% running attack.

I didn't understand running all the time against USC nor passing all the 
time against OU.

Mike
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Beach" <rbeach at neb.rr.com>
To: "Husker List" <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 1:19 PM
Subject: RE: [Husker] Frustration . . . .


>
>
> -------Original Message------- 
>
> From: Theodore Heise
> Date: 12/03/06 13:56:13
> To: Husker List
> Subject: RE: [Husker] Frustration . . . .
>
>
>>>The TV announcers also commented several times that Taylor had been
> Given plenty of time, but been unable to get the ball out.
>
> -- 
> Theodore (Ted) Heise <theo at heise.nu> Bloomington, IN, USA
>
>
>
>     Sometimes it is very difficult to determine if the offensive line is
> the problem or the secondary is playing that great. The Lincoln Journal 
> gave
> the NU passing attack a "D" grade with the following comment.
>
>
>     "Not the perfect storybook ending for Zac Taylor. He struggled. He
> threw the ball short, threw into coverage, couldn't locate open receivers,
> and appeared to hang onto the ball a bit too long on a couple of plays.
> Credit the OU secondary for great coverage and for making some outstanding
> plays."
>
>
> Bob Beach
>
> I have never learned anything when I was the one doing the talking.
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>