Offensive Line

OrderKindOfAlmostRestored said:
How come nobody's giving props to John Garrison? He was brought in to help Barney since BC wasn't getting the job done. Now everyone's praising Barney like he can coach all of a sudden. It seems to me that Garrison's the reason for the OL improvement.
Click to expand...
Honestly I've been more impressed with the interior of the offensive line. Doubly impressed considering they were all walk-ons. The tackles and tight ends (Garrison's guys) have a ways to go. At least, in my opinion.

 
I think the last time I read da skers chiming in on the topic he was talking about how Garrison was the one working with the walk-ons such as Choi, and Long, guys who have been pushing for playing time and playing well to boot. I think he also mentioned Caputo, which makes me think you may have the responsibilities backwards, but da skers or someone can probably be more clear on this.

 
Blackshirt316 said:
The first TD the D gave up was not their fault, It was a bad 3 and out and a freaking 13 yard punt that gave UCLA the ball at the 27 yard line. Neither was the one at the start of the 3rd where Ameer fumbles and gives UCLA the ball on the 28 yard line. Then Taylor's pick gives them the ball in the 4th quarter on the 16 yard line. The Saftey was completely on the Offense.

So yes the D gave up far too many yards and looked bad, but out of 36 points, 24 of them are on the shoulders of the offense and special teams. 12 points in that game fall on the shoulders of the D completely. 12.
Click to expand...
I've never really agreed with this way of thinking. If the offense turns the ball over in a spot where the opposing team is already in field goal range; the most the offense should get blamed for is 3 points. If the defense lets the other team waltz into the endzone, that's not on the offense. Poor starting field position is no excuse for poor defense.

I still expect the offense to score even when they get bad field position - because of the defense. There was a lot of that going on during the UCLA game too. Neither side of the ball seemed to help the other side out very much. You can, without question, make a solid case to blame both sides.

I think the turnover bug is the thing we need to worry about way more than anything else. The offense needs to start taking care of the ball better, and the defense needs to start catching passes that are thrown right to them. Pelini talks about wanting to win championships. Sorry, not going to happen if we can't drastically improve our turnover margin. Do that, and there's not a team on the schedule that can beat us. I honestly believe that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
I think the last time I read da skers chiming in on the topic he was talking about how Garrison was the one working with the walk-ons such as Choi, and Long, guys who have been pushing for playing time and playing well to boot. I think he also mentioned Caputo, which makes me think you may have the responsibilities backwards, but da skers or someone can probably be more clear on this.
Click to expand...
Garrison may have worked with those guys, that I don't know. But I'm 99.9% positive Garrison's main responsibilities are the offensive tackles and the tight ends.

Unless something's changed in the last few weeks.

 
Blaming the UCLA loss on the offensive line is madness.

But you are correct that the offense still had the chance to win the game in the fourth quarter. Probably three chances.

On one of those chances, the offensive line opened big holes for a power running game that took us well into UCLA territory where Maher promptly missed a field goal.

On another, Martinez gets sacked for a safety on a very risky play call that included allowing the defensive end penetration that Martinez was supposed to slip around, where he would then have 90 yards of open field. Bad call or great individual play, that one's not on the o-line.

On another, there was just bad mojo everywhere. Martinez was hurried, but he had enough time. He simply reverted to his worst instincts and low-arc passes.

Fourth quarter heroics wouldn't have been needced if the defense hadn't been playing to Cosgrovian standards.

Hope that settles it. Thanks for letting me relive the painful memory.

Seems pointless and silly not to be happy about the vastly improved Husker offensive line.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well to be honest, our defense kept UCLA off the scoreboard for the majority of the second half, minus one field goal. Possession after possession they made a stop. Gave up some yards, but made the stop nonetheless. They kept us in the game-or rather the game tied-while the offense went on an inept stretch. My post earlier about "looney logic" was a joke to blame the loss on the offense. But in all honesty, this was a perfect example of a team loss. Offense had goods and bads. Defense had goods and bads. Missed Field goals. Bad punts. Poor play calling at times. To pin the loss on any particular phase of the game or part of the team is simply being ignorant to what actually happed and simply forming opinions based on the score and stats.

Again, I have no ideal why this game is still being disussed, but I have again been tractor beamed into the talk.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogies said:
Sure. The next time an offense scores 6 points and puts up 106 yards in a half after a tie score, be sure to blame that one on the D ;)
Click to expand...
No matter what way you shake it, the defensive performance against UCLA was pretty pathetic. That was as poor as I had seen our D play since 2007.

 
BigRedBuster said:
They scored 12 points in the second half.
Click to expand...
For the majority of the second, we held them to a field goal. Just like I said. They got the safety (scored by their defense by the way) at the 8:44 mark. Their field goal was on the 1st possession of the half, and their TD was with under 3 minutes left. So inother words from the 11:50 mark in the 3rd to the 2:13 mark in the 4th, our defense held UCLA scoreless. that is nearly 25 minutes of scoreless football. It's not that bad. The winner is who scores the most points, not gains the most yards. It was a team loss all around.

 
If the defense holds them out of the end zone with three minutes left, the field goal the offense got to go to 30 points would have won the game.

End of third quarter, the game is tied at 27. The offense gave them 2 points on the safety. The offense scores a field goal for 3 points. Without the defense allowing a TD, the game is won by one point.

 
as far as the ucla game goes, run the ball when it was working towards the end of the game, thats on beck not the o line, obviously defense was terrible that day, and if any blame is handed out that is on them and the defensive coaches....is this not the common consensus, what more needs to be said???

 
BigRedBuster said:
If the defense holds them out of the end zone with three minutes left, the field goal the offense got to go to 30 points would have won the game.

End of third quarter, the game is tied at 27. The offense gave them 2 points on the safety. The offense scores a field goal for 3 points. Without the defense allowing a TD, the game is won by one point.
Click to expand...
So the offense gave up 2 points on a safety, but that would've been ok as long as the defense did their job to stop em. That's a bigger double standard than what is portrayed by today's political media.

If Bret Maher woulda made that field goal earlier in the game, then the defense could've gave up that touchdown and the offense shouldve scored a TD to win 37-36. Now it's Maher's fault. Or if the offense wouldve just scored 24 second half points like they did in the first, we'd a won by 2 scores, and would be talking National Championship right now. See where this is going? It was a team loss. And it was a month ago. And now my head hurts.

Edit: I'm not sticking up for the offense or defense in particular. Just trying to make the point that the entire team takes the blame on this one. There isnt on part of the team, coaches included, that couldnt've done more to win that game.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
accountability said:
BigRedBuster said:
If the defense holds them out of the end zone with three minutes left, the field goal the offense got to go to 30 points would have won the game.

End of third quarter, the game is tied at 27. The offense gave them 2 points on the safety. The offense scores a field goal for 3 points. Without the defense allowing a TD, the game is won by one point.
Click to expand...
So the offense gave up 2 points on a safety, but that would've been ok as long as the defense did their job to stop em. That's a bigger double standard than what is portrayed by today's political media.
Click to expand...
I thought that's kind of what BigRedBuster was getting at.

 
The point is, the offense covered their the points they gave up with the field goal.

To the original point on the offensive line. I was thinking about this after the Wisconsin game.

One big thing that tells me our O line is pretty dang good is all the comments about how great our RBs are this year. Contrast that with how everyone thought Ball was all world last year and this year he's looking much more human. Difference??? O lines.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top