[Husker] Angry Dad on HuskerMax

Fri Feb 11 11:47:47 CST 2011

If AngryDad is correct on only 50% of what he said in that article, and Beck does indeed rise to OC, we are in serious, serious trouble this Fall.

It did seem to me that we had a square peg and round hole scenario the last couple of seasons, with Bo trying to go to the spread with guys who didn't know how to do it (Watson, Cotton). If Bo truly believes that the spread is the offense that puts the most pressure on a D (and maybe he should know at least that much), and that's what he wants to run, then by God get some coaches who are experts in the spread!

Rod W.
Sioux City, Ia.

On Feb 11, 2011, at 11:23 AM, David Strong wrote:

> Nick...
> 
> Good Post.  You are right in that I enjoyed it for the entertainment value,
> but Angry Dad clearly knows something about football.  When he says "The
> Spread is Dead", he is pretty clear that he means "The Husker Spread" and is
> even more specific "NU’s current “Spread Offense” in a nutshell. The ZR
> play, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and
> over...".
> 
> He describes what the spread is and does well very nicely,pointing out the 3
> characteristics of a successful spread, and points out that our team doesn't
> do those things. Like:
> 
> "In fact, NU’s version of the SO started with some intrigue, but degraded
> into running the ZR ad nauseam on 1st and 2nd down. When we’d get stuffed 9
> times out of 10 by better Ds, NU would be forced into obvious passing downs
> and usually got flattened by a bull rush."
> 
> He is particularly good at explaining the OL blocking schemes and techniques
> that are needed, and I though his explanation of the "Scrape Exchange" was
> really good.  I definitely agree with you that there was no cause to be so
> insulting to Barney Cotton.  I am not a Cotton fan, I do not know how he
> survived this latest purge, I do not think he is that great a coach.  But he
> seems to be a good guy and a Husker through and through so to ridicule him
> like that is not right.  As for his take on Beck, beats me.  I have some
> reservations about handing over an offense with so many problems to a guy
> with so little experience, but maybe he is ready to take that step.  I don't
> know, only time will tell.
> 
> I'll be looking for more Angry Dad stuff on HMax in the future.  I liked it,
> found it entertaining and informative, but for sure not to be taken as a
> whole for fact.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:30 AM, David Strong <gobigredlist at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Love me some Angry Dad.
>>> 
>>> http://www.huskermax.com/AngryDad/020811.html
>>> 
>>> Dave
>> 
>> Well, he's entertaining, but is he right?  His claim that the spread
>> is dead is generally unsupported.  It ain't dead just because HE says
>> it is.  In the next section he says that Oregon and Auburn didn't get
>> to the big game because they ran the spread offense, but because they
>> ran it very well.  Well, duh!!  And NU's attempt at the spread wasn't
>> run well.  Well, double duh!!  NU in the 90's didn't win because we
>> ran option football, but because we ran it better than anyone else.
>> But not so fast.
>> 
>> Its hard to argue that NU's offense, pre-Texas, was pretty potent.
>> Review Ubben's article from yesterday to track the team's progress.
>> What we did learn was that the offense was more than capable of
>> putting up points in a hurry.  With Texas, call it a total melt-down -
>> they're in our heads and hopefully several years in the Big 10 will
>> take care of that.  OSU managed to slow up and hinder the zone read,
>> so we threw it over their heads.  We put up 51 points on that team,
>> who didn't lose again until they played Oklahoma who struggled to
>> score 47.  The first half of the Mizzou game was a great example of
>> what happens when a team concentrates too much on one player and
>> forgets about other players.  But the second half also shows what
>> happens when your offense relies entirely on one player.  And that's
>> how the rest of the season went.  Our offense was unable to recover
>> from an injured Martinez, and limped (no pun intended) through to the
>> end of the year.  And a gimpy Martinez wasn't enough either.  That
>> offense required a quick and speedy QB; a guy that had enough of both
>> to overcome mistakes in the reads.  Cody, a fine QB in his own right,
>> wasn't that same guy, and we know that Zac didn't have enough of
>> either.
>> 
>> I won't comment on his characterization of Cotton, and I tend to think
>> that the Texas game hinged on more than the inability of a particular
>> coach to teach something that has been around 20 years, regardless of
>> whether he's had the opportunity to run that scheme.  But I tend to
>> agree with his characterization of Watson.  It was poor play calling,
>> very apparent in the Texas game, and it did get worse with each
>> injury.  Again, the offense was working with a particular guy running
>> it.  A relatively common injury put a stop to that, better than anyone
>> we played this year.  And we couldn't recover from that injury, and
>> the OC didn't seem to have a remedy.
>> 
>> Generally, I don't disagree that there's no magic in the Spread, but
>> it seemed to suit the players we had on the field to start with.  But
>> it didn't work when we had injuries, and more than anything else, you
>> needed a system that your backups can run effectively.  Not so with
>> our version of the spread.  What Angry Dad didn't expand on, which I
>> found interesting, was that he mentioned that the spread is generally
>> a passing scheme, with running (the comment about 4 receivers on every
>> play).  So, what happened in the passing game?  The spread, like the
>> WCO, is intended to get small chunks of turf on short passes, in hopes
>> that all that confusion springs someone lose for more yardage, and
>> then run it when the defense is back on their heels.  Did we rely too
>> heavily on the run game?  Did we not have the quality of receivers
>> needed to be successful?  Could we not count on our QB's to get the
>> ball where it was suppose to be?  Or did we just not take advantage of
>> the players we had?  I think this is where he and I agree most.
>> 
>> Nick
>> --
>> "For every person with a spark of genius, there are hundreds with an
>> ignition problem"
>>         Coffee News(6/9/10)
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker