[Husker] USC thought and looking toward Troy

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

Rod Wellman wrote:
>
> >> According to you:  By increasing passing ratio
> >> we would "have seen a NU offense totally outclassed".
> 
> My statement above in the previous post was actually this:
> 
> According to you:  By increasing passing ratio a small bit 
> we would "have seen a NU offense totally outclassed".
> 
> Steven either intentionally or mistakenly deleted the words 
> "a small bit" in this last reply.  

I intentionally deleted the words "a small bit" because
I never said those words.  Please look at your original
statement.  It starts with the words: "According to you"
meaning "According to Steven".  It was you who added the
words "a small bit" to my statement about increasing the
passing ratio.  I never said those words, so I deleted
them from the quote.

> Again, for added emphasis, my point was that A FEW more 
> passes and/or threat of the pass through formation would 
> have given us a better chance to win.  

I see you are determined to have the last word.  I've got 
an idea.  We'll toss a coin, and the winner gets the last 
word.  :-)    

Again, for added emphasis, my point was that the plan was 
to wear down the USC defence before opening up the playbook.  
By the start of the fourth quarter, the USC defense had been 
pounded for 25 minutes.  Without the Taylor-Lucky fumble, it 
probably would have been 30 minutes.  (Think about that for
a moment: the USC defence on the field for 30 minutes versus
15 minutes for the Husker defence.)

Was 25 minutes of pounding enough to slow down the speedy 
USC defence and open up some passing lanes?  Maybe not, but 
it was still a worthwhile plan. 

> Secondly, with SUCH a heavy lean towards the run, 

Pound the rock.  Batter the USC defence.

> it appeared as if we conceded the game before it started.  

No way.  It's a four quarter game.  The plan was to beat
USC in the fourth quarter.

> Disagree if you want, but I can certainly have an opinion 
> on this list without providing Greg Mays-like football  
> analysis.  

Sure, you are welcome to an opinion.  But you gotta expect 
some response when you claim your gameplan is better than 
our coach's.

> I don't think disagreeing with a coach's game plan or 
> decision puts me in the "anti-Callahan" camp.  

True.  What puts someone in the anti-BC camp is saying 
that BC didn't try to win.

> I can certainly love the Huskers avidly while yelling 
> at the TV for different play calls from time to time. 

Sure, knock yourself out.

> Heck, I spent most of my 20's  and 30's doing the same 
> when Tom Osborne was the coach, and I regard him as one 
> of the best coaches of all time.  

I hope you didn't accuse TO of not trying to win.  

> Overall, I'm still very positive about this season,  
> although I don't think a ride to the Big 12 Championship 
> is an automatic. 

I agree.  I think we'll all feel more confident after 
we beat Texas.  GBR.

Cheers,
Steven                                  Fear the Ganz