For Watson Supporters

[cHUSKERis]

When we don't make mistakes, such as dropped passes, or penalties, or fumbles, or interceptions, our offense is basically unstoppable. Hes doing a pretty good job, just the players need to stop making small errors and we are fine.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Tom Osborne had a play where the center left the ball on the gournd - a LIVE FUMBLE! - hoping that no one would notice and then a lineman would scoop it up and run into the end zone. And this with an offense that was designed to pound the ball with real running backs.

When The Fumblerooski worked, Osborne was declared a genius. If it didn't work, it would have been among the stupidest plays ever attempted.

Osborne also had a bizarre play in which the qb would throw a screen pass that bounced OFF the ground into the hands of a running back near the sideline. The pass was just enough behind the qb to be a lateral, but the qb and rb were supposed to ACT disappointed, as if the ball hitting the ground made it an incomplete pass. Then when the defense let up (the ref was notified ahead of time) the receiver would launch a legal pass to a Husker waiting for it deep. For all the drama - and risk - involved, the defense didn't bite. I don't think Tom ran that one again.

Watson runs a fun offense with a lot of weapons and the ability to strike fast and come from behind when those Cosgrove defenses spotted the other team a quick 40 or 50 points. When the defenses jam the box, a quarterback like Joe Ganz (and sometimes Zac Lee) can pick them apart. When they shut down the pass, the system allows a guy like Helu to crank out an old school 150 yard game. And when life gives you a Burkhead to go with your Helu, you make lemonade. When it gives you a Martinez, you see what he brings to the table because you're not locked into a Zac Lee friendly system. When players fumble the ball and make stupid penalties, you pull out your hair, like every other coach.

Other than a miraculous return to the entrenched system and alignment of personnel from the mid-90s, what kind of offense are you guys looking for?

 

[sd'sker]

In all fairness though, here is what I DON'T like, it's not much, but it's something. I don't like that he's quick to go away from something that's working and try to get cute, just for the sake of using a different play in the playbook. Although there has been less of that this year, there is still the Niles Paul (arguably our worst ball handler) running the Wildcat coming out of halftime, which we know what happened and really got the mistakes rolling in the 2nd half. Why not simply come out and do what got you a 31-3 lead in the first place? Why get cute? Granted the "say" that play was going to be for huge yardage, well it wasn't, the guy that can't hold onto anything fumbled it and we lost it.
There you go, that's what annoys me about him.

Not to mention we have a QB who can run the ball better than Niles Paul ALREADY at the QB position. Sorry, but this play made no sense.

i really wish paul would not have fumbled that, just to see how that play would have played out. i am really curious at what they saw or what they were trying to do with paul back there...

 

[billdozer15]

In all fairness though, here is what I DON'T like, it's not much, but it's something. I don't like that he's quick to go away from something that's working and try to get cute, just for the sake of using a different play in the playbook. Although there has been less of that this year, there is still the Niles Paul (arguably our worst ball handler) running the Wildcat coming out of halftime, which we know what happened and really got the mistakes rolling in the 2nd half. Why not simply come out and do what got you a 31-3 lead in the first place? Why get cute? Granted the "say" that play was going to be for huge yardage, well it wasn't, the guy that can't hold onto anything fumbled it and we lost it.
There you go, that's what annoys me about him.

Not to mention we have a QB who can run the ball better than Niles Paul ALREADY at the QB position. Sorry, but this play made no sense.

i really wish paul would not have fumbled that, just to see how that play would have played out. i am really curious at what they saw or what they were trying to do with paul back there...

something tells me we will never know. I am betting NP just lost any chances of running the wildcat with that screw up.

 

[sd'sker]

In all fairness though, here is what I DON'T like, it's not much, but it's something. I don't like that he's quick to go away from something that's working and try to get cute, just for the sake of using a different play in the playbook. Although there has been less of that this year, there is still the Niles Paul (arguably our worst ball handler) running the Wildcat coming out of halftime, which we know what happened and really got the mistakes rolling in the 2nd half. Why not simply come out and do what got you a 31-3 lead in the first place? Why get cute? Granted the "say" that play was going to be for huge yardage, well it wasn't, the guy that can't hold onto anything fumbled it and we lost it.
There you go, that's what annoys me about him.

Not to mention we have a QB who can run the ball better than Niles Paul ALREADY at the QB position. Sorry, but this play made no sense.

i really wish paul would not have fumbled that, just to see how that play would have played out. i am really curious at what they saw or what they were trying to do with paul back there...

something tells me we will never know. I am betting NP just lost any chances of running the wildcat with that screw up.

yeah, but was he just going to run it like martinez would, because then just put rex or martinez back there. i am just curious if there would have been some wrinkle/trick to it. also, i would have liked to see how paul could have ran out of it. i am just curious on how it would have panned out. there must have been a reason for them to try paul back there. did he show something in practice? very curious...

 

[carlfense]

Tom Osborne had a play where the center left the ball on the gournd - a LIVE FUMBLE! - hoping that no one would notice and then a lineman would scoop it up and run into the end zone. And this with an offense that was designed to pound the ball with real running backs.

When The Fumblerooski worked, Osborne was declared a genius. If it didn't work, it would have been among the stupidest plays ever attempted.

Osborne also had a bizarre play in which the qb would throw a screen pass that bounced OFF the ground into the hands of a running back near the sideline. The pass was just enough behind the qb to be a lateral, but the qb and rb were supposed to ACT disappointed, as if the ball hitting the ground made it an incomplete pass. Then when the defense let up (the ref was notified ahead of time) the receiver would launch a legal pass to a Husker waiting for it deep. For all the drama - and risk - involved, the defense didn't bite. I don't think Tom ran that one again.

Watson runs a fun offense with a lot of weapons and the ability to strike fast and come from behind when those Cosgrove defenses spotted the other team a quick 40 or 50 points. When the defenses jam the box, a quarterback like Joe Ganz (and sometimes Zac Lee) can pick them apart. When they shut down the pass, the system allows a guy like Helu to crank out an old school 150 yard game. And when life gives you a Burkhead to go with your Helu, you make lemonade. When it gives you a Martinez, you see what he brings to the table because you're not locked into a Zac Lee friendly system. When players fumble the ball and make stupid penalties, you pull out your hair, like every other coach.

Other than a miraculous return to the entrenched system and alignment of personnel from the mid-90s, what kind of offense are you guys looking for?

The primary difference being that Watson is not Osborne and that Osborne's record gave him the right to call "cute" plays when he wanted to do so.

 

[TheKiD]

Why not simply come out and do what got you a 31-3 lead in the first place? Why get cute? Granted the "say" that play was going to be for huge yardage, well it wasn't, the guy that can't hold onto anything fumbled it and we lost it.

There you go, that's what annoys me about him.

Probably because defenses tend to make adjustments at half-time. Coming out and doing the same thing you did the first half, usually isn't a great recipe for success. Had Paul picked up some good yards rather than fumbling, it would have kept the defense guessing what was coming next. Since he DID fumble it, they probably expected us to go back to what was working and.. had this been a better team, may very well have been able to exploit that a lot better.

Niles Paul needs to get his sh#t together. This is his senior year and has been hyped year after year with mediocre results. If he can't get it together soon, he may find himself riding the bench. The first game jitters are understandable.. but if you don't get that fixed between game 1 and 2, there are big concerns.

The problem is he probably looks like a world beater most days of practice, but then he tries to be the star during gameday instead of just doing what he needs to.

 

[zoogs]

^Probably because we are up 31-3 in a meaningless game and it would time to get some variety in the reps for our young, inexperienced QB. And it's early in the season, so it's the time of year to try some things.

We are seeing the "Watson is getting too cute" criticism come out yet again. The funny thing is, it was not long ago at all that people were criticizing Watson for NOT running trick plays. 'Callahan always had a few trick plays up his sleeve; Watson never runs them.' And we were the absolute opposite of cute last year. For me the bottom line in this argument, anyway, is: it's difficult to sustain "things that work really well" for an entire 4 quarters. When we don't, we chalk it up to 'getting too cute' instead of just acknowledging that sustaining a high level of success against a team for 60 minutes is not easy. You can't just run the same play over and over. Sooner or later, they will catch on.

Okay, I'll bite on this.

When he has/had the right parts and pieces, I like the way defenses can't simply scheme around one aspect or one guy. I know the coaches say the word "multiple" A LOT, but that's what I like. I like that if a D wants to sell out and stop the run inside the tackles, they can hit the edges with either the QB's, RB's or even swing to a WR in space. I like when the D backs out and takes away anything long, they can hit short crossing patterns or the QB or RB can get into space pretty quickly. And, again when the parts/pieces have been there, I like the way they can roll the pocket and have options on ALL levels out in space.

I like that when things are clicking, the offense is very very diverse and can be a real headache for D-Coordinators. However, it's been a couple of years since we've been able to use all the parts and pieces that Watson likes to use. Hopefully this year will be a bit different, especially with the weapons we now have in the backfield.

But, from the same guy who posted the 'cute' complaint, I really like this post. It sums up how I feel exactly. And here, it's not just about Watson. The OC is not just a guy with a scheme. He has to have the pieces, and whether or not we have Watson, we have been lacking the pieces in place. Why can't we succeed on O like Florida or Oklahoma? Because we haven't had anything close to Tebow, Bradford, Harvin, etc. If Watson goes, the players and the talent stay. Now you are asking for another OC that will do better with the same pieces. Sure it could happen, but it's possible he'll do worse, too. It's not about needing a OC that will run a more Nebraska-fan-style of offense. Then again, we are heading in that direction anyway, aren't we?

 

[admo]

Man it just seems like they can get out of rhythm in a hurry and never rebound. I think his previous offensive style couldnt get the job done, and he took the approach "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" (change to spread).

What I do like is when the offense is rolling, its beautiful. I'm big on the forward pass. I think that's going to be all the difference if we are successful this season or not. If they can show consistency with the passing game as a threat (and not that awful lateral stuff - sideline to sideline) the run game will be even more difficult to key on and stop. We'll score BILLIONS of points.

At the end of the day, I hope SW gets it right. I really do.

 

[Ratt Mhule]

None of it. It's all terrible. We should hire Kevin Cosgrove to run the offense, he obviously knows how to exploit defenses.

Alright dude, you're getting hammered in the "sell-out" thread, but that was pretty damn funny :lol:

I am?

Nevermind. It's HuskerFowler. My mistake. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I have no idea why but the bolded parts just made me laugh out loud.

:laughpound :laughpound :laughpound

Don't you make fun of me or I'll start a Sell-Out Thread

:laughpound :laughpound :laughpound

Classic post: Dude, your getting hammered in "sellout" thread. I am? :LOLtartar

 

[brotherofalatehusker]

Tom Osborne had a play where the center left the ball on the gournd - a LIVE FUMBLE! - hoping that no one would notice and then a lineman would scoop it up and run into the end zone. And this with an offense that was designed to pound the ball with real running backs.

When The Fumblerooski worked, Osborne was declared a genius. If it didn't work, it would have been among the stupidest plays ever attempted.

Osborne also had a bizarre play in which the qb would throw a screen pass that bounced OFF the ground into the hands of a running back near the sideline. The pass was just enough behind the qb to be a lateral, but the qb and rb were supposed to ACT disappointed, as if the ball hitting the ground made it an incomplete pass. Then when the defense let up (the ref was notified ahead of time) the receiver would launch a legal pass to a Husker waiting for it deep. For all the drama - and risk - involved, the defense didn't bite. I don't think Tom ran that one again.

Watson runs a fun offense with a lot of weapons and the ability to strike fast and come from behind when those Cosgrove defenses spotted the other team a quick 40 or 50 points. When the defenses jam the box, a quarterback like Joe Ganz (and sometimes Zac Lee) can pick them apart. When they shut down the pass, the system allows a guy like Helu to crank out an old school 150 yard game. And when life gives you a Burkhead to go with your Helu, you make lemonade. When it gives you a Martinez, you see what he brings to the table because you're not locked into a Zac Lee friendly system. When players fumble the ball and make stupid penalties, you pull out your hair, like every other coach.

Other than a miraculous return to the entrenched system and alignment of personnel from the mid-90s, what kind of offense are you guys looking for?

I'm getting old and my memory is the 2nd shortest thing I've got but, as I recall it that bounce pass resulted in a touchdown..... against Maryland?? in the late 70's??. Someone else just used that again last weekend with the same result.

 

[knapplc]

I'm getting old and my memory is the 2nd shortest thing I've got but, as I recall it that bounce pass resulted in a touchdown..... against Maryland?? in the late 70's??. Someone else just used that again last weekend with the same result.

The only time I know for certain we ran that play was against Oklahoma and it went for about 25 yards or so. No TD, at any rate.

 

[huskerscott]

Man it just seems like they can get out of rhythm in a hurry and never rebound. I think his previous offensive style couldnt get the job done, and he took the approach "if you cant beat 'em, join 'em" (change to spread).

What I do like is when the offense is rolling, its beautiful. I'm big on the forward pass. I think that's going to be all the difference if we are successful this season or not. If they can show consistency with the passing game as a threat (and not that awful lateral stuff - sideline to sideline) the run game will be even more difficult to key on and stop. We'll score BILLIONS of points.

At the end of the day, I hope SW gets it right. I really do.

Bingo took the words right out of my mouth.........

For us to be successful this year, to get where we all want to go, we have to be able to pass the ball downfield. I like Tmart in all he brings a totally different dynmatic to the game that we havent had for about 10 years or so. Until he is able to throw the ball downfield with consistency, im not really sold on him or type of offense we are running. I think by conference play defense teams like Texas are gonna be able to figure out how to stop this offense. Seems like the zone read is money everytime its run. But the weakside backers and safety have nevered stayed home on this play. In conference play teams are gonna be disciplined on playing their assignments, thus being able to stop that play.

 

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

None of it. It's all terrible. We should hire Kevin Cosgrove to run the offense, he obviously knows how to exploit defenses.

Alright dude, you're getting hammered in the "sell-out" thread, but that was pretty damn funny :lol:

I am?

Nevermind. It's HuskerFowler. My mistake. :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:

I have no idea why but the bolded parts just made me laugh out loud.

:laughpound :laughpound :laughpound

Don't you make fun of me or I'll start a Sell-Out Thread

:laughpound :laughpound :laughpound

Classic post: Dude, your getting hammered in "sellout" thread. I am? :LOLtartar

Honest mistake. You guys all look the same on here anywhere chuckleshuffle

 

[brotherofalatehusker]

I'm getting old and my memory is the 2nd shortest thing I've got but, as I recall it that bounce pass resulted in a touchdown..... against Maryland?? in the late 70's??. Someone else just used that again last weekend with the same result.

The only time I know for certain we ran that play was against Oklahoma and it went for about 25 yards or so. No TD, at any rate.

See, your memory is longer than mine... It was Oklahoma, Sept. 26, 1982. Gill to Fryar to Krenk for 37 yds. Huskers score 2 plays later and never look back.