[Husker] OWH article on offense stats

[Nick Chevance]

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 10:33 AM,  <shawnsherlock at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Imo hands down the best receiver is McNeill. He is the only offensive you must account for on every play.  He goes across the middle, finds seams (ie VT TD called back), and catches most balls that come his way. He opens up the field for our DBs I mean receivers on offense.
>
> Yes he should be used much much more, but until you have a receiver or) that can take some of the heat defenses will continue to cover him tight and bait Lee into throwing to one of our receivers.

> From: David Strong <gbrlist at yahoo.com>
> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:14:15
> To: Nick Chevance<nickchevance at gmail.com>
> Cc: Husker List<husker at tssi.com>
> Subject: Re: [Husker] OWH article on offense stats
>
> OK Nick, that's good.  But I think you misread my original post.  I didn't say that an argument could be made that "the tight ends are perhaps the best receivers we have", I said "you could make the case that the tight end (McNeill) is our best receiver."  If you don't think Mike McNeill is the best receiver on the team, that's cool,  I wasn't try to take a big stand on it.  But it makes me curious, if you don't think Mike McNeill is the best receiver on the team, then who do you think is?
>
> Dave

Actually, I think I'm agreeing with you, Dave.  I didn't misread your
post, I just said that I'm not sure, with only 53 yards in four games
against BCS opponents, that there may not be enough evidence to name
any of the tight ends as the best receivers.  And I don't want to name
who I think is the best receiver because not one has stood out.  Paul
seems to be our main target/play maker, but that didn't exactly work
out last week or the week before.

I was impressed with the first couple of drives last week.  Watching
from the north stands, the wide outs were making strong statements
establishing their positions on the field, offering Zac a definite
target to throw to.  But that really didn't hold up beyond those early
series, and as the game went on, we saw passes behind and in front of
receivers and, to the tight ends especially, over their heads.  On the
other hand, that pass to Paul for 70-some odd yards - a thing of
beauty right on target.  I think Zac has the ability, I'm not sure
whether the wide outs are doing everything they can to make themselves
available.

Its tough to say, but we knew there were going to be problems this
year with young untested receivers.  But we had a good QB with lots of
accuracy and skill.  I thought that with the ability of the tight ends
to get open, or at least to be matched up with smaller, shorter
defenders, they would play a major part of this team's success.  That
isn't happening, regardless of the skills of the tight ends as
receivers.  I'm not sure there's anyone on the offensive side that
defenses are keying on.  And while the coaches seem satisfied with the
way Zac manages the game, there aren't enough plays being made to be
successful.  Are the receivers dropping balls all that much?  I'd
suspect there have been plenty that we wished they had caught, but I'm
not convinced there are that many.  I wonder if its whether the
receivers are not running routes crisply or correctly, or presenting
themselves to the QB as a target, not getting open, not coming back
for the ball, not finding the seam in the defense, not being a good
and smart receiver.  I'm just not sure what the problem is, the
coaches aren't saying, but they promise better things this week.  I'd
bet those "better things" means more rookie receivers.

But again, we should be able to run at and on Baylor.  Run early, run
often.  Run.

Nick
-- 
"I heard someone tried the monkeys-on-typewriters bit trying for the
plays of W. Shakespeare, but all they got was the collected works of
Francis Bacon."
Bill Hirst