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

[Roger Lohr]

Might Steven really be Mr./Ms Smith??

Roger Lohr-Mpls


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <3aoo-cvfd at dea.spamcon.org>
To: "Husker List" <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:43 PM
Subject: Re: [personal] Re: [Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy


> Skylar Dodds wrote:
>>
>> > 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.
> 
> Sure, experience and dedication are as important as raw
> talent.  But I was talking about newbie freshmen.  If your
> experienced starter gets injured and you have to play a 
> freshman, then 5-star talent trumps 3-star talent.
> 
>> IMHO, from watching Zac a lot in person and a some in TV, 
>> Zac clearly does better after he's established a rhythm.  
> 
> Clearly?  That's not my impression.  In some games Zac's
> passing is sharp from the first possession.
> 
>> He was not allowed that in the USC game, thus some of 
>> the less than desirable passes.  
> 
> People at the game reported that Zac was "not sharp" during
> his warmups before the game.  This continued into the game.  
> 
> Several commentators mentioned that Zac looked flustered
> during the game (especially after the sack).  Can you tell
> me any other game when someone said Zac looked flustered?
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I'm out of my mind?  On the contrary, a coach would be crazy
> to call passing plays when the QB is flustered, under pressure
> and throwing off-target.  
> 
>> 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 
> 
> Really?  Have you done a survey?  I agree there are some
> anti-BC people making a lot of noise (like they did after
> our last loss).  But MORE?  I don't think so.
> 
>> Some of which are even get paid to give their opinions. 
> 
> Yeah, I thought the TV commentators were top notch.
> 
>> Calling someone an 'anti-BC troll' doesn't add to the
>> discussion at all
> 
> Who did I call an anti-BC troll?  My exact words were:
> 
>> > What makes you think BC's gameplan was "not get embarrassed"?
>> > Sounds like something an anti-BC troll would say.  
> 
> Criticising BC's gameplan is indeed something an anti-BC
> troll would do.  However, criticising BC's gameplan does
> not automatically make you an anti-BC troll.  
> 
>> please avoid name calling in the future.
> 
> I've done no name calling.  However, I don't see the point
> in endlessly hammering BC's gameplans (with some people even 
> going back to 2004 losses) unless you have an anti-BC agenda.
> 
> Here we are in the middle of the football season, three days
> from an interesting game, and a B12 championship season ahead
> of us, and all I hear is grizzle, grizzle, grizzle about BC.
> 
>> This argument makes my stomach turn.  
> 
> I sympathize.  All the pointless criticism of the Husker
> coach by Husker "fans" in the middle of a B12 championship 
> season turns my stomach.
> 
>> The thought of 'sparing' the best offensive player on the 
>> team 
> 
> "sparing" is not the word I used.  It was "protect". 
> 
>> to 'save' him for later games is sickening.
> 
> "save" is not the word I used.  It was "keep the quarterback safe".
> 
>> If you're not going to let him put everything on the line
>> in the game, PUT SOMEONE ELSE IN WHO CAN!  
> 
> Fine.  If BC had decided to put in the Ganz, instead of Zac,
> I would have understood.  But I dare say it would have given
> the anti-BC trolls something more to grizzle about.
> 
>> Win the game you're playing today before you start worrying 
>> about later that year.
> 
> That's rather short-sighted.  Our goal for this year is the 
> B12 championship.  Can you remember the last time we were in
> the B12 championship game?  Clinton was president, I think.
> 
> Win, lose or draw, USC is a warm-up game.  So are the other
> pre-season games.  Yeah, a victory feels good.  But those
> games mean nothing.  
> 
>> I'm pretty sure he meant two years ago 
> 
> If he means 2004, he should have said so.  I'm new here, 
> so I'm not familiar with the anti-BC talking points.
> 
>> when we got beat in Ames and then in Norman 
>> and played very conservative.
> 
> That was BC's first year, right?  The year he tried to
> transition Frank's option players to WCO?  Do you really
> think it's fair to go back to BC's first year for examples
> of his supposed incompetence?
> 
>> 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.
> 
> You gotta admit, that was an exciting finish.  It's interesting 
> that you blame that outcome on a conservative stategy.  I seem 
> to recall some ongoing execution problems.
> 
>> seems a little 'malicious' for Roger and Rod's (and many others)
>> opinion who thought BC had it wrong with the gameplan.
> 
> I have no problem with people rationally discussing the gameplan 
> (although at this point I would prefer to be looking forward).  
> Disagree with the gameplan, fine.  Suggest a different gameplan, 
> fine.  But what's the purpose of suggesting that BC didn't try 
> to win?   What's the purpose of rehashing bad losses from BC's
> first season?  
> 
> I suspect some people here hate BC and will try to demonize
> him every time the Huskers lose.  Hopefully, there will be
> fewer opportunities for them to do that in the future.  
> 
> Cheers,
> Steven
> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker