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

[Kenneth McKillip]

3aoo-cvfd -

Is it safe to assume you are a pro-Callahan "troll".  I hate to start
dividing the Huskerlist into camps again.

-----Original Message-----
From: husker-bounces at tssi.com [mailto:husker-bounces at tssi.com] On Behalf Of
3aoo-cvfd at dea.spamcon.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2006 7:44 PM
To: Husker List
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