[Husker] Initial Impressions

[Steve Stone]

Duane wrote:

>Steve,
>Again, you have made some points that I fully agree with -- others 
>not quite so much.
>
>1. Southern Hospitality - sorry, it was the Northern contingency 
>that did everything they could to give points to the Southerners. 
>They hit hard on D and CJ Spiller was deadly on returns, but 
>otherwise, they were pretty inept on O.  Still they didn't give us 
>much.  Those TD passes happened because Ganz threaded the needle 
>with his passes, and were certainly not gifts.

I was hoping to imply that the Northerners were doing their best to 
give the game to the Southerners, yet the Southerners displayed such 
hospitality that they refused to take it. Sorry if I got it garbled.

>
>2. I try not to disparage the announcers much, but yes, it was 
>pretty funny that every time they made a prediction, it was 
>certainly proven wrong.  The funniest was the comment "Nebraska just 
>can't run on Clemson" as Ganz was handing off to Castille for his 58 
>yard gallop.  The "This is turning into a rout was also less than 
>prophetic" even while I was getting upset and worried myself. 
>Still, that comment might cause viewers to switch channels and is in 
>stark contrast to other announcers who often go the other way.

I don't think we should expect mere television commentators to 
perform to perfection. Still, a minimal amount of competence would be 
nice on occasion.

>3. Winter conditioning -- not to stay on this soap box, but I think 
>you will see significant changes as Pelini continues to implement 
>his long-range plans.  Speed and agility are paramount.

I agree and believe the roster of verbal recruits confirms it. My 
comment was intended strictly for the members of the O-line.

>4. Play calling - Generally the accepted wisdom is that when a play 
>works, keep using it until the defense stops it.  Given our lack of 
>productive plays up to that point, repeating our only successful 
>running play seemed to make sense to me.

During the first half, there was NO successful running play. At that 
point NU had a total of 25 yards running. When Q made his 58 yard 
burst, he came back to the huddle a bit "played out." Yet he got the 
ball for the next two plays which were identical and got zilch for 
it. I don't call call that inspired play-calling - - in fact, I call 
it shoddy play-calling.

Sure, if you have a successful play, call it again but not 
immediatelty two more times to the same player who had to be feeling 
a bit of lead in his legs.

>  6. QB Development -- this is my greatest area of agreement.  Why 
>not have the younger players getting more PT?  We don't need style 
>points since we aren't in contention for a national title.  Ganz 
>isn't going to change is draft position based on a few more passes. 
>Yet next season might be significantly more successful with more 
>(a) seasoned QB replacement(s).

In my opinion, style points be damned as far as this year is 
concerned. Player development should have been of high priority.

>  7-8.Blank -- You obviously knew I wouldn't agree with you on these 
>points and wisely erased them [g].
>9. Gameness -- we used to call this strength and conditioning [g]. 
>But it is good to know that just because NU is trailing at 
>half-time, we aren't guaranteed a loss as we had seen the previous 
>four years.

I'm afraid I didn't make my point clearly.

Gameness is only marginally connected to strength and conditioning. 
Rather,gameness is mostly a matter of will and willpower. (Vince 
Lombardi was partly but perhaps not completely correct when he said 
that fatigue makes cowards of us all.)

Perhaps I should have defined gameness this way: gameness is the 
refusal to allow taking a solid beating to make any difference in 
your intent and performance.

Joe Ganz comes pretty close to being game.

Steve Stone










Steve Stone