[Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy

[Rod Wellman]

Well, it seems circumstances have indeed compelled me to post my  
rather lengthy reply (below) to Steven's point by point thrashing of  
an earlier post of mine, which was simply to agree with Roger that a  
bit more passing might have been in order.  I also contend that BC's  
game plan was to simply keep the score close.  I've given my reasons  
once again below.

Read if you like.  Or hit delete and move your mind onto the next game.






OK, Steven, after a point-by-point rebuttal of my post, at the end  
you say we should all forget this game and move on?  I don't make  
many posts, so I think Mike will allow me one more on the subject.  
And I'm certainly not too keen to allow someone to insinuate that I'm  
an "anti-BC troll" without some type of reply.

So here it is:

IMHO, it was a winnable game.  And I briefly outlined why in my  
previous post.  We all get an opinion in this world.

I didn't say Roger was a better coach.  I said if BC would have done  
what Roger wrote ("shown at least a threat of a pass, it might have  
loosened up the run"), we might well have won.  That is certainly a  
defensible argument in this world of sports opinion.

I agree with you that we had key injuries, too.  The difference is  
that USC exploited ours by attacking our corners.  We didn't  
challenge USC's secondary much at all.

Let's see if I understand your logic:  Because of the conservative  
game plan we didn't look as bad as we actually are?  That's weird.   
How about this:  Let's play our game the way we've shown we can (a  
somewhat balanced offense) and see what happens?

According to you:  By increasing passing ratio a small bit we would  
"have seen a NU offense totally outclassed".  What?  Isn't getting  
1.8 yards a carry outclassed?  How about a very low total offense  
number or very few first downs or the lack of production on first  
down?  How can we get outclassed any worse with a game plan that  
mixes it up enough to where the defense can't just simply stack the  
box and stuff your run?  I'm not advocating abandoning a clock- 
control running game.  I'm just saying a small amount of added  
variety in formations and a few more passes might have done the trick.

Yes, I watched the game closely.  I was there, and watched my DVR  
recording of it.  Again, opinions are a dime a dozen, but mine is  
that Taylor and the receivers could never get into a flow or rhythm.   
It is natural for him to be a bit stoked up at the beginning, but I  
think he would have eventually learned what he needed to do to be  
successful.  We ran and ran and ran and ran some more.  How could he  
possibly get a feel for the passing game?  Not giving him the chance  
is the real travesty here. I guess I'm not quite as adept at seeing  
that Taylor was "not himself" just by watching him on TV.  It's kinda  
like those who say that Glenn was sick or injured as an excuse that  
he did not get any playing time.  News article quotes today and  
yesterday say that he was perfectly healthy...just didn't figure into  
things for some reason or another.  If there is a health reason or  
some other reason Taylor wasn't himself that the coaches noticed,  
then playing that conservatively makes some sense.  But BC has never  
alluded to that, so all I have to go on is what we know for sure.

What makes me think the game plan was to "not get embarrassed"?   
Because no team outside of NU's Pipeline years of the mid-90's would  
try to strictly run the ball down USC's throat the way we did last  
Saturday in order to win the game.  BC has said time and time again  
that the plan was to "run the ball.  We wanted to run the ball."   
Wanting to and being able to are two different things.  Do you really  
believe that HE believed he had the O-line prowess in the running  
game, and the experienced running backs to actually win that way?   
Speculation from you and others is that he maybe was going to pass  
more until he saw things that led him away from that, or that this or  
that might have happened had a play or two gone a different way, or  
the players had "executed" better. This is pure speculation, with no  
evidence to back your argument.  The plan was to run the ball.  No  
ifs, ands or buts.  And it didn't work.  I'm not Anti-Callahan and to  
insinuate that I am is just plain wrong.  I'm anti "not playing to  
win".  This is the second case I can find where the game smelled that  
way to me in the BC era.  I just don't like it, and I have a right to  
say it on this list, without getting a mean-spirited post in reply.

You say we "held off at USC" to protect Zac.  We can afford to lose a  
RB, but not Zac".  So, what you're saying is that by throwing the  
ball, maybe 6 or 8 more times, we would have lost him?  We can pass  
16 times but we better not pass 24, because 16 is the limit when it  
comes to risking an injury to our QB?  I'd like to point out that  
that neither Roger nor I were advocating for a 40 or 50-attempt game  
from Zac last Saturday.  Just a few more attempts on first down, a  
few play-action pass plays in the first half and overall a few more  
pass plays, and heck, even the appearance of the threat of a pass  
formation-wise, I think, would have done wonders.  And what if he did  
get injured?  Looking at the B12 North, only ISU and Mizzou look like  
they can challenge us, and Mizzou is at home. I'd say Ganz has come a  
long way recently and could compete quite well against those guys.

My bad on the ISU/OU games.  I was referring to the previous year.   
BC's game plan and/or playcalling gave away the ISU game that year,  
and gave away what little chance we had in the OU game that year.

You call the Alamo Bowl game plan "brilliant".  I suppose that's just  
a way of taking a jab at me?  Well, I don't know if it was brilliant  
or not, but it mixed up the run and pass pretty well, and it looked  
like a game BC really wanted to win.  I say the USC game should have  
been the same way.  We should have played to win.  Not to slink off  
the field with a not-so-bad deficit and a healthy QB.  That's all I'm  
saying.  It didn't look to me like we were playing to win, and my  
opinion on this list counts as much as yours.  And my posts contain  
no name calling, veiled or otherwise.

Rod W.
Sioux City, Ia.


On Sep 20, 2006, at 4:06 PM, 3aoo-cvfd at dea.spamcon.org wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker