[Husker] Bo Knows Stubborn

[Andrew Smith]

Note that I said the fumbles, etc. were "partially" due to  coaching 
decisions.

Yes, turnovers, sacks etc. can be viewed simply as poor execution.   But 
which QB to go with IS a coaching decision.
TM was consistently executing poorly and the offensive struggled when he 
was QB.  Burkhead consistently executed well and the offense move the 
ball when he was QB.   The coaches decided to go with the QB who IMHO 
clearly was executing poorly , and was likely to continue to do so (in 
this game; I'm not talking long term).


On 12/7/2010 8:34 AM, Mark Landin wrote:
> Not sure I see how turnovers can be the result of coching decisions.
> They are come from poor execution. Can you give an example of a
> turnover in the game that could be tied to coaching? I'm willing to
> change my mind if shown.
>
> On 12/6/10, Andrew Smith<arossman at earthlink.net>  wrote:
>> TM's int was on 3rd and goal at the OU 8.  The score was 17-7.  So the
>> int kept NU from going up 20-7, not 24-0.
>>
>> I'd also argue that the 4 fumbles,  2 turnovers, and 5 sacks in the
>> second half were partially due to coaching decisions.
>>
>> I don't know what odd coaching decisions OU made.  I think their 4th
>> down attempts made sense given their field position and 2 were
>> successful and earned 6 points.
>>
>> n 12/5/2010 11:16 PM, Mike Nolan wrote:
>>>> Though I think NU was out-coached, it's only due to the decision to
>>>> continue with TM instead of Burkhead or Lee.
>>> Naah, Nebraska wasn't outcoached nearly so much as it was just outplayed,
>>> because Oklahoma made some odd coaching decisions, too.
>>>
>>> But four turnovers, including one that kept Nebraska from possibly taking
>>> a
>>> 24-0 lead, won't win very often.
>>> --
>>> Mike Nolan
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> husker site list
>> husker at tssi.com
>> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>>