[Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy

[3aoo-cvfd at dea.spamcon.org]

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

I too was hoping for a win.  I really thought we had a shot.
USC was down from last year (I thought) and the Huskers 
were running hot (I thought).  If we played really well we
could win.

Before the game I saw lots of predictions from Husker fans.
Many said they thought we could win if we played error-free.
I agreed.

Did we play error-free?  No.  Did we win?  No.  No surprises
there.  What is surprising is that some people have now 
decided that BC is at fault.    

> 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.

How could BC have been so stupid?  Such a simple idea and
BC missed it.  Why do we have such a stupid coach?

> That is certainly a defensible argument in this world of 
> sports opinion.

Sorry, that's hardly a defensible argument.  At best it's
an idea.  Where's the analysis?  Where are the specific,
alternative plays he would call?  What would the matchups
look like?    

> We didn't challenge USC's secondary much at all.

And why was it that we didn't challenge USC's secondary?
Wait.  I know the answer.  BC was an idiot.

> Let's see if I understand your logic:  Because of the 
> conservative game plan we didn't look as bad as we 
> actually are?  

Nope that's not my logic.  I don't think the Huskers 
are bad (although USC clearly has superior athletes).
I do believe that the conservative first-half game plan
kept us in the game.

> How about this:  Let's play our game the way we've shown 
> we can (a  somewhat balanced offense) 

You are mistaken if you think we should play the same game,
irrespective of the opponent.  The point of having a balanced
offense is that it gives us the ability to attack the opponents' 
weaknesses.  Sometimes you pass, sometimes you pound the rock,
sometimes you mix it up.  But it varies from opponent to opponent.  
It is wrong to think that we can take the game we put up against
LA Tech and run it against USC.

> According to you:  By increasing passing ratio  
> we would  "have seen a NU offense totally outclassed".  

Yes, if we'd tried passing more in the first half, I believe 
USC would have totally outclassed us.
 
> What?  Isn't getting 1.8 yards a carry outclassed?  

Nope.  Our goal for the first three quarters was to deny USC
the ball and keep the USC defense on the field.  Pound the rock,
wear them down.  We were extremely successful.  After three
quarters:  Nebraska time of possession:  25:11
'               USC time of possession:  19:49

> 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.

Or they might have made things worse.  Incomplete passes 
stop the clock.  Intercepted passes give USC quick and 
easy scoring opportunities.   

> Taylor and the receivers could never get into a flow or rhythm.

A lot of that was caused by pressure from the USC defence.

> 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.  

Sorry, we are definitely not going to beat USC by passing if
Zac is not at his best.  The Pac 10 is a passing conference.
Pass defence is USC's bread & butter.  

> We ran and ran and ran and ran some more.  

USC is not used to pounding the rock -- that's where our 
opportunity was.  

> How could he possibly get a feel for the passing game?  

Because that's what a quarterback does.  There were
scattered passes throughout the first three quarters.
That should have been enough for a capable quarterback
to get a feel for the field.  There is no reason why he
should not be ready to unleash a passing attack in the
fourth quarter.

> Not giving him the chance is the real travesty here.

What about Cody Glenn?  Was it a travesty not to give
him a chance?  And Steve Otavien?  Was it a travesy
not to give him shot?  Lots of players didn't get to 
play much.  So what?  We are talking about a team.  
The coach puts together the best possible gameplan 
and the players slot into that plan.  Everybody does 
his bit and we win the game.

> BC has said time and time again that the plan was to 
> "run the ball.  We wanted to run the ball."

Makes sense to me.

> Wanting to and being able to are two different things.

The point is:  we accomplished our goal.  The goal was to
run down the clock, pound the USC defense and keep the score
close.  Sure, it would have been nice to make a few more yards
rushing and get a touchdown (making the score really close).
But the gameplan was still on track until the Taylor-Lucky
fumble.

> 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?

Win?  No.  But BC never intended to win by rushing.  He was
simply setting the stage for the knockout punch in the fourth
quarter.  Pound the USC defence, keep them on the field for
much longer than the Husker defense and then (when the USC
defence is sore and tired) open up the playbook.
 
> this or that might have happened had a play or two gone a 
> different way, 

Indeed.  There were half a dozen Husker mistakes that killed
the game for us.  We needed to play a near-perfect game and 
we didn't.

> or the players had "executed" better. 

Yeah, I think the unforced fumble between Taylor and Lucky
was the critical error.  When it happened, the game was over
as far as I was concerned.  We simply cannot beat USC if we
make that sort of error.

> The plan was to run the ball.  No ifs, ands or buts.  

Sorry, that is not correct.  There was definitely
an "and" in the plan.  And probably an "if" too.

> And it didn't work. 

Obviously we lost.  But it's not simply a matter of blaming
the plan.  We were playing a superior team, so perhaps no
plan would have worked?  Or perhaps the plan was a winning
plan that failed because of a silly error by one of the
players (like catching a kick on the 5 yard line)?

> I'm not Anti-Callahan and to insinuate that I am is just 
> plain wrong. 

Sorry, I see all this criticism of the BC plan and stupid
accusations that BC didn't play to win. and I conclude (not
unreasonably) that there is an anti-BC agenda.  Especially
when BC "failures" from the past are dredged up again and
again.

> I'm anti "not playing to win".  

So, you're suggesting that BC did not play to win?

> This is the second case I can find where the game smelled 
> that way to me in the BC era.  

Wow, your sense of smell trumps my idle speculation.
Clearly this proves BC is a dastard.  

> I just don't like it, 

You don't like what?  That BC doesn't play to win.
Unbelievable.

> and I have a right to say it on this list, without 
> getting a mean-spirited post in reply.

Sure, you have a right to say it on this list and I 
appreciate all the people who contribute here.  But 
when you insult my coach, I should be able to respond
in kind.

> You say we "held off at USC" to protect Zac. 

Nope, I did not say BC did that.  I suggested that as
an alternative explanation to "BC did not play to win".
An alternative which, by the way, is a lot more reasonable
than saying BC did not not play to win.

> We can afford to lose a RB, but not Zac". 

Yup, even two running backs.

> So, what you're saying is that by throwing the ball, maybe 
> 6 or 8 more times, we would have lost him?  

Not necessarily.  But there would be an increased risk.

> 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?  

Still makes more sense to me than "BC did not play to win".

> 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.

Good, that would have been suicide.

> 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.

It's a theory.  But is it better than BC's plan?  Probably
not.  Do you know how I can say that?  Because BC and his
staff have watched hundreds of hours of film on USC and
discussed each matchup in the tiniest detail.  They are 
the experts.  You guys are just fans.

> 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.

Wow, we win the North with the Ganz?  How times have changed.
Fear the Ganz.  I take back everything I said -- throw Zac
to the wolves.  Who needs him?  We've got the Ganz.

Now there's an interesting topic for discussion (instead of
the anti-BC stuff):  Can the Huskers win the north with the
Ganz?

> You call the Alamo Bowl game plan "brilliant".

Yes, so was the USC gameplan.

> I say the USC game should have been the same way.  We 
> should have played to win. 

We did.

> Not to slink off the field 

I didn't notice any Huskers slinking, but I wasn't at
the game.  Much slinking going on?

> with a not-so-bad deficit and a healthy QB.

You've got to admit it's better than a blowout and
an injured QB.  

> It didn't look to me like we were playing to win, and 
> my opinion on this list counts as much as yours.

Actually your opinion counts for more than mine -- you
were at the game.  I'm sorry it was a downer for you.

Cheers,
Steven