mjmartin1970

Ok, objectivity. Positives: We are currently 6 and 4, and going bowling. At least, by our record, we are showing some improvement. I would call this season moderately successful if we can end up 7 and 5. We also get an extra month of practice that we really need. Negatives: As a casual observer, it appears to me that this team is lacking fundamentals. Blocking, tackling, minimizing "stupid" penalties, holding on to the football, etc. This is why, in my non-coach opinion, we are lacking consistency on both offense AND defense - we cannot seem to do the little things well on every single play. Also, we have been consistently inconsistent for the past two years. That, to me, is not a very good sign. I'm not going to pretend that I know what the solution is as I don't spend 90 to 100 hours a week on Nebraska Football (as I'm pretty sure our coaching staff does). But if we can't start doing the little things well on every single play, then we will not show consistent improvement.

I think that CU has a good amount of very nice fans. The majority of them like poking fun at NU (mainly because we beat them for SOOOOOO many years), but are pretty nice about it. However, their "bad" fans are really, really, really bad. I have even went to games in a "normal" coat, only to take it off when game time begins to show my true colors. Oh, and I definitely agree with finding a mode of transportation with local plates. One year, I got tickets in the CU student section. Lets just say I was silently cheering for the Huskers that game.

I've decided to not have any feelings on the burning of Beck's redshirt because it is done, right or wrong. Further, I don't think Beck gives us our best chance of winning right now (which is what we should try to do). Therefore, I'm thinking Taylor should (and most likely will if healthy) start. One the other hand, BC has shown very little in the area of development (espeicially of QBs). He sticks with one guy until he is injured. I hope that he strays from this a little bit in this game. I'm thinking at least one series (maybe two if it is not a long series) in the early to mid 2nd Quarter (however, this is dependent on weather conditions, score at the time, i.e. the "feel" of the game). Also, if the game is not winnable or losable, I'd like to see Beck in at the end of the game. If we are up 14 or more points, not to just take a knee, but get Beck some snaps at least, even if he is just handing off to Lucky or Glenn. Or, if we are down 14 or more points, get Beck some snaps. Once again, this is based on the "feel" for the game the Head Coach has, and can't be said definitively one way or another prior to game time.

What has happened to our Safeties? From the sounds of it, both of them have forgotten how to tackle.

Wow - there is some fire, too bad it was from the K-State running back.

I'm listening on Huskers.Com, and it is working perfectly.

Woo Hoo - we have 7 yards on 6 plays!!!

Why in the H*** can't we tackle.

The transferring seems like a real possible issue to me. The main reason - burning of redshirts. Almost ALL of these talented freshman still have a redshirt year to burn (because almost all of them have played, albeit in a limited capacity). Because we've burned their shirts, they still have four to play three. At first, I was wondering why we burned a lot of redshirts, mainly for special teams play. Then I remember I special teams from last year (special as in they took the short bus).

Well, I attribute the on the field meltdowns to two things. First, the Big 12 officiating is absolutely horrible, across the board. I know I have been frustrated by it. Second, he has to be frustrated just as much by what is happening as the rest of us. He doesn't go into these games expecting everything to fall apart. I know when things go to hell on my job, I get a little bit pissy as well.

DaveH; I actually suspected that Callahan did this, as all good coaches (and I think all of them) do. It just gives me hope that Callahan, as well as the team, should improve next season. Hopefully, we can even improve this season. Hopefully, change this and/or that, and beat K-State. Get bowl eligible, and utilize the extra practices to get even better next season. All I can do is hope.

Ok, I've been very, very hard on Callahan & assistants the last few weeks. And, I have to apologize, a little. I know that this guy is not trying to lose. I know that all he wants to do is win. Here is my question..... Can Callahan improve? All good coaches, from time to time, go to other coaches and ask advice. If the myth that I heard is true, it was TO going to Bowden (I believe) in the early 90s, and realizing that he needed more speed, specifically on defense, to win championships. And bam, we have our HUGE run of the early/mid 90s. Will/does Callahan do this? If so, then I believe that we can, and will, improve next season. I know we have talented players (at least talented enough to compete in the Big 12 North, which we are not currently doing). I know that we have players that want to win, and want to win badly. Obviously something that Callahan and crew is teaching the players will not sink in or does not work. The only way I know to fix something this is to try something different. Does Callahan have the humility to go to other coaches and find out what works on the college level?

I really can't believe that after the butt kicking we just received from Kansas, people still say that we don't have the talent and/or the talend developed yet. Wow - give me some of what you are smoking.

I only voted give him 2 more years because that is what will happen. Puderson is too arrogant to admit he screwed up with his one man search committee, and Pearlman won't fire Puderson for a couple more years (ironic that Pearlman will give Puderson a lot more of a chance than Puderson ever gave FS).

Everything points to the fact that we shouldn't be able to run the ball at all on KU, and should start out of the gate passing all over the place. Then again, just when I think I know what we should do BC does just about the opposite. So, I'm predicting we are going to come out of the gate and jam the ball right down their throat. And that it will work because we've been practicing it against our 1s this week. In a classic 3 yards and a cloud of dust slugfest - NU wins 21 - 10, with our first 200+ yd rushing game, and Ross gets about 125 of those.

The reason I asked disturbing trend or coincidence is that these stats are very "non-scientific". In other words, these are just the scores at the end of the first quarter (maybe I was not clear on that). Most were either 7 to 3, 0 to 7, 7 to 0, etc. etc. Included in that the fact that someone (either Nebraska or the opponent) could have been driving at the time. So, within in mere seconds, whomever was leading the game at the end of the first quarter could then be trailing, or winning by much more. Because you start the game anew in the second half - half time statistics should be much more telling than almost guaranteeing a loss if you are behind at the end of the first quarter. Regardless, I see two things: First, if we come out and win the first quarter in two of the next three games there would be significant improvement from 2004 to 2005. But nobody wins 1st Quarter Championships. Second, just as important as starting strong is coming back from a deficit AND WINNING. Something BC hasn't been able to do with consistency (lose 90% of the games where we trailed at the end of the first quarter???). I'm not sure how to fix this, as I think this may be a player mentality issue. They have to believe that they are going to win the game, no matter what. Didn't BC get rid of the play psychologist guy/position???

Yup!

Not counting Div I-AA opponents..... In 2004, we trailed after the 1st Quarter in 70% of our games (7/10). Of those, we lost 86% of those gaems (6/7), and they accounted for 100% of our losses. In 2005, we have trailed after the 1st Quarter in 43% of our games (3/7). Of those, we lost 100% of those games (3/3), and they accounted for 100% of our losses. Granted, trailing after the first quarter is never going to result in a lot of wins, but this is disturbing to me. In watching the games, I thought that this team has been good at coming back from a deficit. However, after looking at the stats above, I have realized that we are good at coming back and making a game of it, only to lose the game in the end. What are we doing wrong that we can't come out and take a lead (in the Bill C era, we trail after the 1st Quarter in almost 60% of our games)? Is it really just execution as Bill C states? Why can't we come back from a deficit (in the Bill C era, we have lost 90% of the games where we trailed after the first quarter)? We seem to make a game of these contest - only to lose in the end? I'm concerned that we get behind because we aren't that good. Other teams get a little conservative, and allow us to come back. Only for the other team to get aggressive again and show how bad we are - thus all the loses. Thoughts? Comments?

From http://espn.go.com/ncf/columns/davie/1440703.html - Bob Davie on zone blocking: "Zone blocking initially starts out as a double team at the point of attack on the down defensive linemen, but the beauty of it is that one of the offensive linemen will leave to attack the linebacker while one stays to take over the defensive lineman. The key is for the two offensive linemen working in unison to double-team the defensive lineman to decide who and when one of them will leave to block the linebacker." Now there is a reason Bob Davie is analyzing and not coaching anymore, but I still respect him enough to be able to teach me a thing or two about football. Any way, this technique seems that it would be significantly more difficult to teach/learn than man blocking. The reason - you can easily teach the lineman, individually, who to block in a one-on-one situation. Also, it would be a lot easier to dissect which blocking assignment was "blown", and who was the culpert. Zone blocking seems that it would be much more difficult to teach, which lineman is not doing their job/needs additional assistance, and to learn, to be able to "feel" which lineman should leave to block the linebacker. Further, we have not topped 200 yards net rushing in a game yet this year. Thus, I contend it is our inexperience in the zone blocking scheme that is hindering our consistency on offense at this point in time. Thus, as our linemen have time "in the system" and time working together, we will continue to get better and better.

Hi - Newbie here, logging in from WAY to close to Buff land (Denver, CO). This is one of the more intriguing post to me on all of the Husker message boards that I read from time to time. The reason being that everyone believes we should run the ball more, and run the ball better because we have done it in the past. However, if we have switched from man to zone blocking (which in my comparison between our running game and the donkey's errr I mean broncos I believe we have), then it is similar to the issues/inexperience we are seeing with pass blocking. Something new and different our o-line is not use to. In fact, I would even take it a step further and state that our inexperience with zone blocking in the run game is hurting our pass game. The reason being that ALL good WCO teams can run well. Look at Green Bay without a solid run game, look at difference in Denver when they can run the ball. It is an essential part of the WCO. Therefore, until our line understands this better, and we can establish a solid running game, the WCO will sputter. Question - Is Wags experienced at teaching WCO zone blocking techniques? Not to disrespect him because I think he is a very good coach. Just an honest question.