[personal] Re: [Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy

[Skylar Dodds]

Hello Husker Fans,

3cdso> A 5-star freshman trumps a 3-star freshman every time.

On paper it does.  It probably does on the field 50% of the time.  Ask
Tom Osborne if you have to have all 5 stars to put together one of the
best college football teams of all times.

My guess is his answer would be, "You need some talent, both 5-star
and no-star walk-ons".

3cdso> Did you watch the game closely?  Taylors' passing was not good.
3cdso> Perhaps it was USC pressure?  Perhaps Taylor just had an off
3cdso> day?  But I saw nothing in Taylor's passing performance to justify
3cdso> calling more passing plays.  Don't get me wrong.  I am a big Zac 
3cdso> fan.  However, it is clear to me that Zac was not at his best at 
3cdso> USC.  

IMHO, from watching Zac a lot in person and a some in TV, Zac
clearly does better after he's established a rhythm.  He was not
allowed that in the USC game, thus some of the less than desirable
passes.  I think you're out of your mind if you think BC didn't pass
because of how he thought Taylor was playing that day.

3cdso> Many people believe (and I am one of them) that BC was trying to
3cdso> win and that his plan was sound.  But, for the sake of argument, 
3cdso> let's assume that BC was not trying to win.  Why would he do that?  
3cdso> "Not getting embarrassed" is a stupid reason (unless you are an 
3cdso> anti-BC troll).

There are even MORE people who believe that he was just trying to keep
USC's offense off the field and keep the game close so it didn't look
bad (like TT 2 years ago). Some of which are even get paid to give
their opinions. Calling someone an 'anti-BC troll' doesn't add to the
discussion at all, please avoid name calling in the future.

3cdso> The most likely reason for easing off on the USC game is
3cdso> to protect our most valuable assets for the main campaign (the
3cdso> B12).

3cdso> We have four top running backs, but just one top quarterback.
3cdso> We can affort to lose a running back (or two), but if we lose
3cdso> Zac the B12 championship run is over. So, a risk-averse coach
3cdso> would pound USC with running backs and keep the quarterback
3cdso> safe.

This argument makes my stomach turn.  The thought of 'sparing' the
best offensive player on the team to 'save' him for later games is
sickening.  If you're not going to let him put everything on the line
in the game, PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN WHO CAN!  Win the game you're playing
today before you start worrying about later that year.

3cdso> Last year's Iowa State game?  Didn't we win that one?
3cdso> Last year's Oklahoma game?  I thought we were in that game
3cdso> almost to the end.  I don't remember anyone blaming the
3cdso> gameplan (but at that point I wasn't a subscriber to this 
3cdso> discussion group). 

I'm pretty sure he meant two years ago when we got beat in Ames and
then in Norman and played very conservative.

In fact, the only game I remember winning with a conservative strategy
under BC was a 7-6 barn burner vs Pittsburgh, but that's just me.

For the record, I understood your position earlier, but this post
seems a little 'malicious' for Roger and Rod's (and many others)
opinion who thought BC had it wrong with the gameplan.

To me, this was the worst 'gameplan' decision this staff has made
since running 3 defensive lineman all game against TT and never
blitzing when they put up 60 on us.

-- 
Go Skers,
 Skylar                            mailto:Sklarbodds at cox.net