[Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy

Wed Sep 20 22:20:44 CDT 2006

I suggest folks settle this argument by hearing what the players had to say.

http://journalstar.com/articles/2006/09/20/huskerextra/doc4510c43dc0e8c139844966.txt
    Taylor :
    - I'd take the same approach if we played them again
    - I understand why we did it
    - It made sense. We were in the game and had our shots
    - A lot of people want to criticize (Callahan) for not throwing the ball 
much more, but if you look at it, we had our chances
    - The game plan put us in a situation to win the game. We just didn't 
make the plays when we needed to

     Swift :
    - I really, really wasn't frustrated that much
    - It's just when we were down that much (21-3), it seemed like we should've 
passed maybe a little bit more.
    - But I mean, it's all in the game plan.
    - I trust Callahan. I know what he's doing. He definitely knows what he's 
doing out there
    - Most of the time, we had too much pressure coming to the quarterback. 
You never know what could've happened.

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=38&u_sid=2245686
        Taylor:
    - It's a little tough sometimes
    - I think any quarterback, naturally, wants to be selfish and throw the 
ball 80 times a game.
    - That's how quarterbacks feel. But I understand why we did it. It made 
sense.
    - Down the road in conference, we're going to play some more great 
teams, and we're going to get our shots
    - We're not worried about what everybody around the world's thinking 
about us right now

Tommy Thompson
"GO BIG RED...RETURN TO GLORY"
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rod Wellman" <gobigred66 at mac.com>
To: <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy

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