[Husker] (no subject)

[nickchevance at gmail.com]

Hard to have a faster tempo when you only run 56 plays and have the ball for 23 minutes.

Nick
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Titsworth, Scott" <titswort at ohio.edu>
Sender: husker-bounces at tssi.com
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2011 23:25:41 
To: Husker List<husker at tssi.com>
Subject: [Husker] (no subject)

The I back and Full back need to be more consistent and productive parts of our offense. I think we have quality people at those positions, but the OL will need to prevent line penetration and get more push with blocking on the LBs.

I am less "glass is half empty" on the evaluation of passing. Bell's reception was one of those pop ups. I am happy that our receivers are finally starting to make some plays. Most vertical throws of 20 plus that does not involve broken coverage ARE pop fies but you expect the receiver to battle for the ball. We are finally starting to do that which is a good sign.

We actually defended the rollout much better in the 2nd half.  I'm more worried about power and misdirection through the interior of the D. That should not be happening, although i have thought that was a problem for a while now.

Two games in a row where pre snap penalties have been under control.

I was expecting to see a faster tempo this game.

Scott

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 10, 2011, at 10:52 PM, "Skylar Dodds" <<mailto:sklarbodds at cox.net>sklarbodds at cox.net<mailto:sklarbodds at cox.net>> wrote:

Tmart actually played terrible for 95% of the game but you won't see it on
the stat sheet.  It's covered up by a couple good runs, but most of his
passing yards came on long throws that were just 'pop flies' thrown up in
the air we were lucky to come down with.

Sent from my iPhone
_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker