[Husker] You know

[Tony Lambert]

I think it was before the first fumble Matt Davison said that was the sun 
side on receiving punts so he pretty much called that fumble. The second one 
was just not getting to the ball. I looked at it as playing in the outfield 
and you are playing deep and the batter pops one out to mid field and the 
fielder just doesn't get to it in time.


BTW, Solich's Ohio team is undefeated and leading what looks to be a
stronger MAC and Craig Bohl's team is 6-1 after winning the NCAA Div.
I Championship last year.  Maybe they could teach the players to line
up right and never fumble.

It seems these coach's didn’t have that issue of the lineman being in the 
backfield, Why is this ?


Tony Lambert
-----Original Message----- 
From: Steve Reichenbach
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 12:01 PM
To: dkarre at comcast.net ; husker at tssi.com
Subject: Re: [Husker] You know

> > If i may, what the point of going for two-point conversion the first 
> > time?
> >
> The idea was to cut the lead to three, so NU could tie with a FG. The
> effect, however, was to give NW a shot at winning with that late FG.

Even if Nebraska had gone for one and made the conversion, the lead
would have been two and Northwestern still could have taken the lead
with a FG.  Although there are scenarios where going for two could
have hurt, those did not transpire.  As it was, had Nebraska made the
two-point conversion, Northwestern only could have tied with a FG.

This was a question, not a criticism, but some of the criticisms have
been ridiculous (although some are relevant).  Someone criticized the
pass defense, but Northwestern was held to 43% completions and 3.3 yds
per attempt.  That is effective pass defense.  Similarly, someone
claimed that offensive lineman learn to line up in youth leagues, but
you can look at any college or pro game and see the tackles off the
line of scrimmage.  Evidently, the refs made a point of telling
Nebraska they were getting too far off the line, so the Nebraska
lineman and coaches should have adjusted (and evidently did on most
plays), but this may have been as much about what these refs wanted
relative to the game as it is played today as about coaching.  Likewise,
there the criticism of the fumbles, but two of three yesterday were
first fumbles of the year by normally sure-handed and evidently
well-coached K. Bell and K. Reed.

You know, it's easy to complain and say that things should be better.
After all, we only need a coach who can recruit the best players to
play for a mid-sized, mid-ranked university in a mid-sized city in
the middle of the country (some might write in the middle of nowhere)
far away from most of their homes, teach them to never make mistakes
(and to optionally be good students and citizens), then make great
game plans and call all the right plays, and then get the breaks in
close games.  Simple, right?

If some Nebraska fans haven't learned that replacing the coach won't
fix all the problems and can make things worse, then that must be a
really hard lesson for them to learn.  I, for one, don't want to keep
learning it.  I'd rather that we learned the lesson that even great
coaches can take years to find the level of success that Nebraska fans
seem to think should come as a matter of course and that patience with
a coach that many fans wanted to fire in the late 70s and again in the
late 80s and early 90s turned out pretty well.  So, be a little patient.
This year isn't a lost cause yet and next year looks better aligned for
Nebraska in terms of personnel and schedule.

BTW, Solich's Ohio team is undefeated and leading what looks to be a
stronger MAC and Craig Bohl's team is 6-1 after winning the NCAA Div.
I Championship last year.  Maybe they could teach the players to line
up right and never fumble.

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker