The much needed "SPARK"

[Taylor]

I did see Green throw the skip passes but alot of those were on the run. And on the slants Green hit his wr's in the numbers. You really think that Zac Lee who was had a alittle over 1 yard per rush and looks scared everytime anybody gets next to him will be able to do anything against the sooners? At least Green can take off and he broke some tackles against baylor. I backed lee at the start of the year but he had his chance and its Greens turn. Why should we struggle with a JR and then have to go through it again with Green in two years. Atleast let him see what he can do in a big game Lee got that chance and sucked every big game. And dont say the mizzou game because that was all because of are D.

You are grossly exaggerating Lee's performance under pressure. Lee did both good and bad under pressure. At times he threw great, beautiful passes and at times he threw passes that were an abomination. He was at times a serviceable runner and at times he was tentative. This should not be surprising considering he's a first-year starter. They often struggle.

No matter how anyone slices this, the offense as a whole has struggled all year, independent of QB play. Line blocking is not independent of QB play. WRs running poor routes is not independent of QB play. RBs running tentatively is not independent of QB play. They are all pieces of the whole, and all affect each other. Lee has been less than stellar, but he is not the sole reason we lost three games. Pulling Lee for Green does not solve our other problems, as evidenced by the wholesale changes at WR this week.

I will support either Lee or Green, whichever guy starts, that's my guy. This business of throwing either one under the bus in support of the other guy is silly. They're both Huskers, and they both need support.

I agree with you like I said I backed Lee at the start and have nothing against him obviously its just a game at the end of the day. But I do think that it starts with the line and thats why I would give Green the nod because he can run better and seems like it is harder to bring him down.

 

[knapplc]

Bingo. The problem is, Watson's offense is predicated on "taking what the defense gives us." He's stated this numerous times, and it's clear that this is his philosophy. But, as you said, we're not good enough across multiple offensive schemes to take what the defense gives us.

You know, i honestly don't like that philosophy. Would i be correct if i said, that is being a very conservative OC? It seems week after week, i hear during the pregame "we need to go vertical and take shots downfield". I just haven't seen that in our offense, i see little spurts here and there, but its never consistent, the bubble screens and mid screens is what we usually see.

I don't what do you guys think, is Watson too conservative when calling the plays for the offense?

Absolutely he's too conservative. Everything is "safe." We go away from whatever the defense shades toward, so we'll pass if they put eight in the box, we don't even attempt to go to our TEs if they're remotely covered, and we look for one-on-ones vs. our WRs before we throw. When our opponent stacks the box, but then drops someone into a zone, it confuses our QB and he doesn't know where to go so he throws it away.

Any kind of run blitz flummoxes our O Line, and since we have no fullback or our TEs are out running pass routes on run plays as decoys, there aren't enough blockers and our RBs have nowhere to go. A simple film study shows our trends to anyone who's paying attention, which is why it always looks like we're running into more defenders than blockers - it's like they have a copy of our playbook and they're right there with the ballcarrier.

Our offense is supposed to be "multiple and unpredictable," but far too often it's so utterly predictable that it's easy for even bottom-dwelling defenses like ISU, Baylor, Texas Tech and Missouri to sniff out what we're doing based on formation and blow it up. We see this time and time again, but we don't see adjustments being made to counter this.

Someone asked earlier if we self-scout, and I can't believe we do. If we do, we're either not very good at it or we're not able to fix the problems we find. Or we're just too stubborn to fix them.

 

[cornhuskersftw]

We know the coaches picked Lee as the starting QB for a reason. I don't think anyone is doubting that he looks great in practice and is probably overall a better passer. But he can't translate his performance from practice into a real game. Is that his fault? I'm not sure. It could be that he is wearing the green jersey too much or the practices are too soft, and he can't handle the real pressure from a game. It could be a lack of confidence. And I feel that part of the lack of confidence comes from indecisive coaches and fair weathered fans. The coaches need to pick a starter and stick with him for the rest of this season. I just don't think it's mentally fair to them and it leaves our offense with no identity. Lee is/was definitely not the sole reason for all of losses. We have a terrible offensive line, injured running backs, and wide receivers that can't hold onto the ball. But Lee also can't run. Putting him in there to start and trying to do any running plays with Lee is just dangerous. He doesn't run correctly. He stands nearly erect, and that leaves him open to have the ball stripped so easily. And he can't fake... at all. The defense reads him so easily. With all of these offensive problems, it makes sense to have a more mobile QB starting the game. Green could scramble and gain some yards, and Lee can't. Green may not be as great as everyone wants him to be, and maybe Lee might be able to gain confidence if the coaches didn't flip flop every week. If the coaches have no faith in their starting QBs, then we can't expect the offense to feel any differently!! But this season is what it is. And I think we need some mobility that Green can provide due to a boatload of offensive problems.

 

[Enhance]

We know the coaches picked Lee as the starting QB for a reason. I don't think anyone is doubting that he looks great in practice and is probably overall a better passer. But he can't translate his performance from practice into a real game.

They did pick Lee, yes, but if he was really as good as they say he was in practice, why did they try to go get a guy who never played a snap of D1 football and had only 1 year of eligibility? I know there were depth issues at quarterback, but there must have been some concern for Lee if they actually tried to pull that one off.

 

[junior4949]

It isn't so much that our playbook is huge and it is causing problems. The real issue is that we have such a variety of offensive formations/plays that there is no one thing this team is great at.
We literally run everything from double tight end sets, power I's, a variety of shotgun formations, a variety of ace Formations, and then we even ran what looked like a new formation this week every time we had a designed CG run.

I just don't see how any team can be effective at any one thing when there is so much variety. Key in on what this team is good at and then perfect/run those plays. If we are best in our ace formation, then I want to see ace 75% of the time. If we are best running double tight end sets, then have those guys out on the field for most of the game.

We have an identity as a football team, and it is do everything. Everything isn't working.

Bingo. The problem is, Watson's offense is predicated on "taking what the defense gives us." He's stated this numerous times, and it's clear that this is his philosophy. But, as you said, we're not good enough across multiple offensive schemes to take what the defense gives us.

I fundamentally disagree with the concept of being a Jack of All Trades, because it begins from the mindset that the opponent will dictate to us what we will get. We need to be able to impose our will on our opponent, on offense and defense. If that isn't working, that's what halftime adjustments are for. But this notion that we take what they give us... No. It does not work.

I don't necessarily agree with the jack of all trades type offense either. However, very few teams can impose their will on their opponent unless it's a Sun Belt team or such. The triple option wasn't exactly imposing. The QB had reads just like the ever popular zone read now. They either handed it to the fullback, ran the ball themselves, or they pitched it out to the RB. All of these decisions were based from what the defense gave them. Watching the USC/Oregon game, you could see Oregon's QB taking exactly what the USC D was giving him. Our biggest problem is we don't have the playmakers to even take what the defense is giving us. As near as I can tell, teams are lining up stacking the box saying hey your Qb is gonna have to beat us with his arm. We don't have the receivers or the QB to do that right now. When Helu was healthy, it gave us a lot more margin for error.

 

[zoogs]

About the size of our O playbook: BigWillie has stated that a LOT of those 320 plays are just the same plays run out of different formations, not much different than when we had the same plays out of different formations in the Osborne era. He's a poster who knows what he's talking about so I think it might be time for everyone to stop getting hung up on a number.

And knapplc, I disagree with your assessment on how easy it is to change throwing motion. I'm not sure it's easy at all. One to two weeks? Really? If I recall, throwing motion is something that after a certain point, you just don't even mess with. And Green has a lot of other things on his plate right now to worry about his throwing mechanics. Pryor and Taylor would be other examples of poor throwers who didn't magically evolve into great passers like some perhaps assumed. I think it's a reasonable comparison: Green might not make that leap. Then again, he might. But better, more touted athletes didn't.

 

[TheHuskerPilot]

The thing that gets me about this whole Lee/Green debate is that it appears some folks have taken sides like it is the stinking Civil War. I have never understood how people can have an allegiance to a single player in a team game. I don’t care who starts, who plays the most snaps, etc. etc. etc. Just win some freaking football games. If that means Green good, if that means Lee alright. It does not matter and IMO it shouldn’t matter.

I don’t know if people want to feel like they predicted Cody Green to be great, so they want it to be so to make them feel better about their football knowledge. I do know that but whatever it is it definitely hinders their ability to view things objectively and with an open mind.

The truth (as I see it) is in his first start Green played average and not much more then that. He had a couple good throws and he had a handful of really bad ones. He had a couple nice runs and he had a couple stinkers. He locked into his receivers a lot, appeared to not be able to throw on the run and did absolutely nothing that would make anyone (outside of his #1 fans) go wow.

This in no way is saying he isn’t capable of dominating because he has shown glimpses (not very many but they have appeared), but there is also the chance that he doesn’t ever dominate (that would crush a lot of people).

:yeah Cody Spano in 2010 !!!! :dumdum

 

[cornhuskersftw]

We know the coaches picked Lee as the starting QB for a reason. I don't think anyone is doubting that he looks great in practice and is probably overall a better passer. But he can't translate his performance from practice into a real game.

They did pick Lee, yes, but if he was really as good as they say he was in practice, why did they try to go get a guy who never played a snap of D1 football and had only 1 year of eligibility? I know there were depth issues at quarterback, but there must have been some concern for Lee if they actually tried to pull that one off.

Well the OP who seems to have a fairly neutral stance of views of the QB seems to think Lee looks better in practice than Green. And obviously against fluff teams Lee put up great numbers. I don't think his worst performance was the VT game, and although he didn't look exceptional, he didn't look horrific either. He was able to drive the team down to the redzone but was unable to complete. In the past few games, he hasn't even been able to get the team down the field. We have the same offensive line and receivers, although our RB haven't been consistent due to injury. What's the difference between the VT game and the TT/ISU game? The latter two have worse defenses overall, and he couldn't move the ball at all?!? To me, it just makes sense to have Green start at this point. Obviously with Witt transferring and Spano getting injured, there was a depth problem. And I'm sure there was some concern, but initially he had to have shown a better performance in practice than Green. And like I said, it didn't translate into real games with pressure.

 

[AF Husker Fan]

FWIW Pat White, whom wasn't a great passer, led WVU to 4 BCS bowl games and I believe won all 4. only QB to do that in the BCS era.

 

[Glendower]

And IMHO we can get all that if we cut the playbook and let these guys perfect the remainder of those plays. How can any team win with a 320 play playbook. I really think this is the root of all our evil.

Agreed sir. Why be average at best at all these plays when you could be GREAT at less than half of these. I dont think we need the option back but a offense like oregon or florida would be awesome. You dont see them doing 320 plays.

Most schools have 300+ plays in their playbook I would imagine. It sounds like a lot, but most schools have 20-30 base formations, and if you have 20 formations, 10 running plays and 10 passing plays out of each, you would have 400 plays, but if the blocking schemes aren't changed much, and the basic themes of the plays are the same, they really just need to know 50-60 plays, then then formations.

In 97 Osbone's offense had 170 base plays, not counting flipping formations or hot routes.

Okay, I've heard that the 320 number includes flipping and pass/run variants of some of them. I mean, once you flip 170 you have 340... I don't know if that's true, though (that 320 includes flipping... not that 170x2 = 340... pretty sure the latter is true).

 

[BaytownHusker]

Some of the thing I have just read cracks me up!!!!

!. Green doesnt have wheels and he is a bruising type of runner... You that said that my friend must not have ever seen the guy run..

2. If we play the next 4 years like Ohio stae and make it to as many BCS champ games as them with the QB's that they hd that coulnt throw Ill be happy..

 

[Travis9]

FWIW Pat White, whom wasn't a great passer, led WVU to 4 BCS bowl games and I believe won all 4. only QB to do that in the BCS era.

yes Pat White did, but they didn't have an identity crisis with their offense. everyone knew what their offense was and they recruited for that offense.

Us on the other hand have a crisis with our identity. and the future doesn't look any clearer. If we were going to move to the run first type of spread then we damn sure shouldn't be recruiting Gabbert.

To compare the Pat White offense to ours is not doable. my point with Pat White is that he couldn't throw it at all and neither can Green

 

[AF Husker Fan]

i understand your point i was simply saying I'd take 4 bcs bowls in 4 years

 

[Travis9]

Some of the thing I have just read cracks me up!!!!

!. Green doesnt have wheels and he is a bruising type of runner... You that said that my friend must not have ever seen the guy run..

2. If we play the next 4 years like Ohio stae and make it to as many BCS champ games as them with the QB's that they hd that coulnt throw Ill be happy..

I will agree on the Ohio State part with one exception. we play in the Big 12 not the Big 10 and that is a huge difference. the 2 conferences are not comparable

 

[Travis9]

i understand your point i was simply saying I'd take 4 bcs bowls in 4 years

So would I but it won't happen in the Big 12. You cannot win this conference if you aren't balanced in your attack. everyone looks at the numbers put up by Bradford last year but they forget that they had 2 very good running backs that put up big numbers as well.