[Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy

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

Rod Wellman wrote:
>
> this was a very WINNABLE game.

Yeah, right.  

> IF Callahan had done what Roger says below, we might 
> very well have won.  

Yeah, Roger is a better coach than BC.  But then, who isn't.

> USC had injuries in the secondary...

And we had key injuries too.

> they were staring a true freshman at safety.  Their 
> starting NT was out with injury.

How many 5-star recruiting classes has USC had recently?
Yeah, that's right, every USC recruiting class is 5-star.
A 5-star freshman trumps a 3-star freshman every time. 

> Their defense still looked great, 

Yes it did.

> but I didn't see an NU offense that was totally outclassed 
> or out of their element. 

That's because of the conservative BC gameplan. 

> Just increasing the passing vs. running ratio a small bit 
> might very well have opened up our running game

On the contrary, if we had increased the passing ratio, you
would have seen a NU offense totally outclassed.

> It'd be different if Taylor was a first year QB, or had 
> the track record of throwing INTs or making bad decisions.

Did you watch the game closely?  Taylors' passing was not good.
Perhaps it was USC pressure?  Perhaps Taylor just had an off
day?  But I saw nothing in Taylor's passing performance to justify
calling more passing plays.  Don't get me wrong.  I am a big Zac 
fan.  However, it is clear to me that Zac was not at his best at 
USC.  

> Give him and the passing game just a few more chances to make 
> plays 

Zac had several chances to "make plays" and it didn't look good.
I was watching the "live stats" during the game, and for most
of the game Nebraska's best passer was the punter.

> and I say the outcome is a lot  different.  

Yeah, the outcome would have been a lot different:  we would
have looked totally outclassed.

> If a 3 or 4 to one ratio of run vs. pass was his game plan to win.   
> It's a terrible one.  

Has it occurred to you that the original gameplan might have
had more passing, but when BC saw how Zac was performing he 
went to Plan B.

> If it's his game plan to "not get embarrassed", that's even worse.

What makes you think BC's gameplan was "not get embarrassed"?
Sounds like something an anti-BC troll would say.  

Many people believe (and I am one of them) that BC was trying to 
win and that his plan was sound.  But, for the sake of argument, 
let's assume that BC was not trying to win.  Why would he do that?  
"Not getting embarrassed" is a stupid reason (unless you are an 
anti-BC troll).  The most likely reason for easing off on the USC 
game is to protect our most valuable assets for the main campaign 
(the B12).

We have four top running backs, but just one top quarterback.  We
can affort to lose a running back (or two), but if we lose Zac the
B12 championship run is over.  So, a risk-averse coach would pound
USC with running backs and keep the quarterback safe.

> This reeks of the Ia. State crappy game plan where the run was 
> there for the taking for us and all he did was pass, 

Last year's Iowa State game?  Didn't we win that one?
Pretty exciting game too -- really got our moneys worth.

> and the following week against OU, where all we did was run 
> when our only chance to win was to mix it up 

Last year's Oklahoma game?  I thought we were in that game
almost to the end.  I don't remember anyone blaming the
gameplan (but at that point I wasn't a subscriber to this 
discussion group). 

> Contrast those two with the Alamo Bowl, where the mix of plays kept  
> us in the game and allowed us to pull out the victory.

Brilliant gameplan BC.

> Sorry if I duplicated.  

ditto

> I, too, feel better now and can move onto those other Trojans
> coming up this weekend.

I too would love to close the door on USC and look forward.  
Let's do it.  GBR.

Cheers,
Steven