[personal] Re: [Husker] Davidson

[Pat Gaule]

Skylar Dodds wrote:

>
>And in the post I was referring to, I said that Mizzou was the only poor
>game the offense had.  Do you really think the offensive guy should be fired
>after 1 poor outing?
>  
>
I never think that a coach should be fired over 1 game.  If the Missouri 
game was an aberration, then hardly anyone would be calling for 
Callahan's head.  The sad reality is that Callahan has accumulated a 
26-17 record to this point in his Nebraska career, a mark that puts his 
winning percentage a mere fraction over .600.  That's a mark that will 
only get worse as the season progresses.  In my humble opinion, this 
problem goes far beyond Cosgrove, a man that was hand-picked by Callahan 
only because of their personal friendship.

>That being said, you don't know that.  If the defense gets 2 or 3 "2 and
>outs" in a row, maybe the offense finds a rhythm and starts rolling, you
>flat out don't know that. 
>  
>
The offense was awful last night, and only so much of that blame can be 
shifted to the defense.  The offense did absolutely nothing when they 
had the ball, and they did have their opportunities.  It's also worth 
noting (again) that they were going up against a defensive squad that 
entered the game ranked 92nd in total defense.  The resulting 
performance was not only poor - it was abysmal.  If the offense needs 
the defense to force a couple 3 and outs just to get into a rythym, then 
something is wrong.  The fact that we were trailing before the offense 
even touched the ball should be enough motivation.  The fact that 
Missouri outscored our offense for the entire game before our offense 
touched the ball once is just depressing on so many levels.

>You responded with time of possessions to a post I was clearly talking about
>number of plays ran.  If you want to talk time of possession that's a
>different argument with different things to consider like the pass/run ratio
>of each team we've played and how we played against them.  I also wasn't
>talking about the first 4 games anyway because I truly believe the offense
>looked poor last night because it's been 3 weeks since they've ran enough
>plays to get in a rhythm.
>  
>

Well, that sounds like part of the problem.  If our offense needs to run 
a requesite number of plays just to get in "rythmn", then I don't think 
that's a great position to be in.  Missouri's offense came out firing on 
all cylinders and didn't relent.  As for the time of possession 
argument, I still think it's relevant.  If Nebraska had the ball for a 
comparable amount of gameclock time compared to the opponent, but 
couldn't get as many plays off, then something is lacking in this 
offensive system.



>For the record, if you take out the Nevada game where the defense actually
>played well, we've ran 357 plays to our opponents 411.  And as I said
>before, the last two have been 187-127.  Again, the games I was referring
>to.
>  
>
If you take out the Nevada game, Nebraska's total offensive average 
drops from 439.33 to 402.2, which would put them at 53rd in the 
country.  Considering that Nevada's defense is currently ranked 95th in 
the counry, I'd say the offensive outburst in that game had more to do 
with playing a poor opponent than the defensive playing well. Nebraska's 
offense controlled that game from start to finish.

>Pat, I'm not knocking you and I'm sorry if my 'emotion' has come across as
>such, but this is a good offense that had a bad night last night in my
>opinion.
>  
>
There is no need to apologize, and I appreciate your insight.  I just 
can't agree with you on this.