BRV920

Well by all means break out langsdorfs play book and show him how we should be calling the game. I mean it must be so easy that any run of the mill huskerboard user would be an instant upgrade right? [/ Seems like maybe you've missed pretty much all of last years and this years discussion on Langsdorfs play calling? Also isn't that what a message board is for? So if Langsdorfs gameplan for Ohio State and Iowa was to attack downfield with 15-20 deep passes in my OPINION that is on him for a terrible game plan. Mavric pretty well summed it up.

So go with the same game plan the led to loses to Illinois and Purdue last year? Pretty stupid in my opinion.

I generally agree with your points. I've said since TA became the starter that he was terrible at decision-making. That's why I have given Langs credit for calling several games that basically took that decision-making out of TA's hands and forced the short throws. I just don't know why we went away from that in other games. I've also said I'll give Langs more time with an actual QB to work with. That's why he's not on my check-list in this thread. I don't dislike the general design of his offense. My worry is that he doesn't really put it to the best use. He really wants to throw the ball. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, especially if we're completing mid-60%. But I don't think he has much feel for how to call the run game. And I think he'll be more prone to abandon the running game when he has a passing game that is more effective. Which will work in a lot of games because we have more talent than most teams we play. But I don't know if that will deliver championship-level football in the B1G in November. because we wanted to win that's why. Against those other teams we needed to open it up and hope for something good to happen. Because those secondary's would have shut that short simple stuff down easy. Langs wanted to call a more complicated air attack but armstrongs inexperience and aggressive decision making made a bad situation worse. That's a lot of speculation on your part. What are the better passing attacks that Iowa shut down this year? How many above average passing teams did Ohio State play? And considering those choices led to the worst blowouts of the year - one of the worst in school history in one case - it would seem that they were misguided. It's called being observant, and common sense, mostly. The Hawkeyes, i don't know if you are aware or not but they, do still have desmond king, one of the best cover corners in the BIG. The rest of their secondary was and is good enough to shut down a passing attack if there is no threat of a running game. i think you can see where im going with this. Throw a run game in there they get blown out, like how they did with penn state. even then they only gave up 240 yards to McSorley in the air and 164 rushingto the lions top RB. not great, but not awful either to the eventual BIG champs. But you probably noticed the relative balance in PSU's attack. they ran the ball 20 times with their best back, McSorley had eighteen attempts. We had no such balance obviously due too a decimated o-line that was recovering by the iowa game but still out of sync as would be expected from a unit that hadn't spent more than three games playing together. We couldn't run it reliably and were naive to think we would. Top that off with a respectable but average running back along with our best runner (Armstrong) being gimp with a hamstring issue, our best power back (ozigbo) injured for much of the season. We balled all these problems up and threw that at a disciplined and relatively healthy Iowa D! Tell me what you would have done? Throw it into corners that are playing aggressive and with safeties playing up to jump passing lanes? With a QB notorious for poor decisions, spoty mechanics, and accuracy, who is throwing on a bum hamstring to boot. As for Ohio state they held Baker Mayfield and OU to 224 yards. Pretty good against their style of offense. So not sure what your point there is. Also did a good job against PSU in their loss. So what makes you think a short passing game with TA was going to change anything if a heisman caliber player in Mayfield couldn't do it? Seriously what did you think was going to happen? You can point to stats and recruiting stars and how they translate to talent and thus why we shouldn't have lost this game and thus its the coaches fault somehow. But your just grasping at straws dude. The only game we can actually second guess the staff this year on was wisconsin. Some decisions there were a little iffy. The other two games we were not healthy, not even close at critical positions. Team that up with the defense dropping the ball and you have a blow out. I understand your anger and im mad too, there are things this staff does that drives me up a wall. But anyone who thinks your going to take a pistol read option offense and convert it to a pro style offense and be winning championships by year two is hilariously misinformed about how hard of a transition that is to make, and how incompatible the personnel are to each other. This is a four year plus rebuilding job. Get comfy, because with two new Qb's next year its probably going to be much of the same. End rant. Oklahoma scored 24 points on Ohio State. They lost the game because they are terrible on defense. So I'd say their game plan was far better than ours.

Never thought I'd say this but Read could improve Florida's special teams. Beyond pathetic.

I really hope this is not the thinking and I suspect it is not as Riley is not this stupid. Thinking like this almost cost the USC coach his job. Yes, I am glad we brought in Lee but let him compete as we have two of our best QB recruits in awhile coming here. Frankly I expect POB and Gebbia to compete...they are not going against a long time starter in TA...its a blank page and none of these QB's have ever taken a snap at NU. This QB job needs to be wide open. I don't think they're saying the job isn't wide open. I think they're saying Lee was clearly better than POB. This is exactly what I was saying. POB is lightyears behind Lee according to the players. They have all said POB is very talented but isn't as accurate as Lee and can't read coverage. Still has a long way to go.

From what I've been told from parents that have kids on the team that I know. Tanner Lee will be our starter next year and it will be at least two years before POB is our starter if he can win the job.

This is not what we HAD to do. It is what we chose to do. Here here. TA should not have been in the game. POB and Darlington were both available. And why did we run so many zone reads with a QB that can't run?POB was never available yesterday. Fyfe and TA needed to die before we'd burn that redshirt. POB didn't even travel for the game.

What's the deal with Fyfe? Broke his hand.

Better hope Tommy is good to go Friday. Otherwise Darlington may be our starter.

Some of the RPO's have been pre snap reads on opponents alignment. Mostly the WR screens to the sidelines or when we run our RB's in speed motion.

Doing that today against a bad Maryland run defense. Next year and beyond, it will be more pass heavy. Also, how many of the Fyfe runs/sacks were called pass plays. Where is the evidence? They ran a balanced offense at Oregon State. Mike Riley wants to run the ball and knows it is essential to winning.Langsdorf is the OC. He likes to pass the ball and doesn't stay comitted to the run.you are basing this on opinion though. What evidence do your have that this is true because I can look at the numbers and see that he has ran about 55% of the time this season as well as in the past most seasonsI'm basing it on all the WRs that are being recruited and the type of QBs being recruited. Langsdorf has gone more run heavy the past 2 years because he had no confidence in Armstrong, and Tommy was able to do a lot of things running the ball. Basically, the QB run game will be replaced with 4-wide, short passing game and then hit a deep pass from time to time. We're recruiting a lot of WR's because we're losing a lot of WR depth after this season. If we were planning on going with a 4 WR offense then Derrion Grimm would still be on the team. I too think Langsdorf can get too pass happy at times, but it's not like he's going to go full Air-Raid I'd rather he go full air raid than "50/50 balance." Unless you have top 10 talent, 50/50 is a recipe for mediocrity. Even Alabama (Kiffin) is being dragged kicking and screaming to a mobile QB offenses because the "pro style" rarely pilots an elite college offense.[/quote Yep, balance sucks. Pretty much says you aren't good at either.

Why are we snapping ball with 8 to 10 seconds left on the play clock?

What is this play calling?

I thought that was the story but according to Sean Callahan last week you have to show that you've missed TWO seasons due to injury to get a medical hardship. That's incorrect. Foster could still play and be eligible for the redshirt. http://www.fromtherumbleseat.com/georgia-tech-football/2015/10/7/9457847/football-the-medical-redshirt-explained Edit: I guess since the injury isn't technically "season ending" there may be some gray area there that would DQ him. I wonder if he doesn't play the rest of the year if he would still be eligible or if he's already ineligible because he's possibly able to play again? If foster didn't play this season it seems like he would be eligible for the medical redshirt right? Or did he lose that by practicing?

Not sure if this is being discussed anywhere else but wouldn't Foster be in line for a medical redshirt right now? Can they still play him for a couple of games at the end of the season and still get this done?

If you do this. What would the offense identity be?

I don't think it is smart to assume a QB is not developed if he has no playing experience. I see plenty of first year starters around the country that are plenty developed and ready to play when they hit the field. If our coaches are any good (jury is still out, imo), POB has developed this year and would next year as a back-up, should that be his role. According to parents I know that have kids on the team. Their kids say that Tanner Lee will be our starter next year and it's not even close. They say POB will be pretty good in a couple of years but has a LONG way to go.

So much for not getting embarrassed on a national stage. Banker better get his Poop together or they may score 70.

Georgia Tech's offense has very little in common with Osborne's.

I'm aware of Franks off the field problems. But I'm not sure you can call those facts.

I new HC needs at least 6 years as long as nothing unethical or illegal happens under their watch to show if they are a good fit with the program that they are currently with. That is 4 years of having to use the players that the last staff recruited which can be a good or bad thing depending on how good recruiters they were. Then two years with experienced players that they recruited to play in their system. Bo had 7 years which was more than enough time to prove how good of a fit he was, and Frank had 6 and both proved that they were not fit for the job here.Of our last five coaches only one has proved he wasn't worthy of being here. It wasn't Frank or Bo. Your statement is true however you could have changed the second sentence to say "and two proved that they weren't going to get us where we inspired to be". The statements would have included the same three coaches. My statement was actually based on facts. Your statement is pure speculation on your part. We will never know what Frank could have done if he stayed.How many years was Frank the head coach? Six by my count and I'm pretty sure that was more than enough to know what he was capable of.You're actually right for once Elf. Frank played in a National Championship game, won a Big 12 conference championship and had a team ranked number 3 at the end of the season.

I new HC needs at least 6 years as long as nothing unethical or illegal happens under their watch to show if they are a good fit with the program that they are currently with. That is 4 years of having to use the players that the last staff recruited which can be a good or bad thing depending on how good recruiters they were. Then two years with experienced players that they recruited to play in their system. Bo had 7 years which was more than enough time to prove how good of a fit he was, and Frank had 6 and both proved that they were not fit for the job here.Of our last five coaches only one has proved he wasn't worthy of being here. It wasn't Frank or Bo. Your statement is true however you could have changed the second sentence to say "and two proved that they weren't going to get us where we inspired to be". The statements would have included the same three coaches. My statement was actually based on facts. Your statement is pure speculation on your part. We will never know what Frank could have done if he stayed.

I new HC needs at least 6 years as long as nothing unethical or illegal happens under their watch to show if they are a good fit with the program that they are currently with. That is 4 years of having to use the players that the last staff recruited which can be a good or bad thing depending on how good recruiters they were. Then two years with experienced players that they recruited to play in their system. Bo had 7 years which was more than enough time to prove how good of a fit he was, and Frank had 6 and both proved that they were not fit for the job here. Of our last five coaches only one has proved he wasn't worthy of being here. It wasn't Frank or Bo.

Pretty much sums up what I've been saying for quite awhile. Running the ball wins games. Like when it was 3 and 9 almost every time because we ran twice - sure wish we would have run on third down so we could have punted and WON the game..... You don understand I'm not opposed to throwing the ball right? But not as the bread and butter of our offense. Keep ignoring the numbers because they don't suit your preferred offense. Not hearing to many people begging to run Michigan States or Stanfords offenses right now. Know why? Because they lost their NFL caliber QB's and their teams are headed for .500 seasons or losing records. This is the reason people like myself or CM prefer a run based offense that can win games without a world beater at QB.

Pretty much sums up what I've been saying for quite awhile. Running the ball wins games.