[personal] Re: [Husker] Could this Husker team beat...

[3aoo-cvfd at dea.spamcon.org]

Steve Reichenbach wrote:
>
> It's hard to figure out why you can't understand.

What I can't understand is why "fans" want to pick at 
the scabs.  What's the point?  Yes, the loss was painful.  
It was painful for me too.  Do, I want to relive the pain 
every day?  No.  

> People have been pretty clear 

Which people?  The football "experts" sitting in front
of their computers with a mouse in one hand and a donut
in the other? 

> that continuing to run the ball when the ypc was less 
> than 2 

First quarter USC
-----------------
N 2-9  N21   Lucky, Marlon rush for 7 yards to the NU28

Second quarter USC
-----------------
N 2-10 N20   Lucky, Marlon rush for 9 yards to the NU29 
N 3-7  U46   Wilson, Kenny rush for 10 yards to the USC36
N 1-10 N15   Lucky, Marlon rush for 5 yards to the NU20
N 3-3  N22   Wilson, Kenny rush for 4 yards to the NU26
N 1-10 N26   Wilson, Kenny rush for 4 yards to the NU30

Third quarter USC
------------------
N 1-10 N30   Wilson, Kenny rush for 6 yards to the NU36
N 1-10 U41   Jackson, Brando rush for 5 yards to the USC36
N 2-5  U36   Wilson, Kenny rush for 6 yards to the USC30
N 2-7  N08   Wilson, Kenny rush for 5 yards to the NU13

> and USC was stacking the line wasn't a recipe for success 
> and that a more mixed attack would have had more success.

For that you need an accurate quarterback.  Zac was 50% at
USC (far below his usual 78%).  Zac killed the first drive
with an incomplete pass at 3rd and 2 (after Lucky got 7 yards).
Zac killed the third drive with two incomplete passes at 2nd
and 8.  In the second half Zac fumbled the ball on the first
play of our first possession and gifted USC and easy score.
Game over.

If people want to pick at the scabs of USC, looking for someone 
to blame, the obvious choice is Zac.  Don't get me wrong, I'm 
a big fan of Zac.  I back him 100%.  But Zac is human.  He has 
good days and he has bad days.  USC was a bad day for Zac (50%).  
So was Kansas (43%).  

> It's not as if people haven't been making that criticism 
> quite clear.  What's to not understand?  

I understand perfectly.  Some people dislike BC and are ready
to blame him for everything.  

> accept the difference of opinion about whether continuing to 
> run the ball in that game was a good plan.

It's got nothing to do with running the ball.  It's all about
slamming BC.  If we pass a lot, BC is slammed for not running
the ball enough.  If we run a lot, BC is slammed for not passing
more.  

We've had six games this year.  Four were big wins.  The other
two were heavily criticized by BC-haters and other excitable 
fans.  We lost at USC and nearly lost to Kansas.  Supposedly 
the BC gameplan was at fault.    

I've heard hours and hours of chatter about the USC gameplan 
and the Kansas gameplan.  It's all BC's fault (yeah right).
But the simple fact remains:  Zac was very accurate for four
games (78%) and we won those games easily.  Zac was much less
accurate at USC (50%) and Kansas (43%) and we struggled.  

Irrespective of the gameplan, we needed a sharp quarterback
to go head-to-head with USC.  Unfortunately, on September 16,
we didn't have one.

Cheers,
Steven