AR Husker Fan

As you can tell from my screen name, I live in Arkansas, and have for a while. Given that, it's hard to escape anything related to the Razorbacks - it's kind of similar to the situation in Nebraska in that regard. For those that didn't see it or read about it, Texas barely escaped Arkansas last Saturday. The score was 22-20 - and Arkansas should have won. On its first series, Arkansas had to punt - and the new deep snapper sailed it over the punter's head and out of the endzone for a safety. In the final two minutes of the game, Arkansas was inside the red zone and driving - at the very least they could have kicked a field goal and won it there. The game was lost when the quarterback scrambled, and had the ball knocked loose at about the 15. He had it tucked away - the defender simply punched it out. The point, though, is this - Arkansas lost 18 starters off last year's team. Ten of them were lost off offense alone. On defense, only one returning starter started all the games last year. The secondary is completely new. Let me tell you - stop Benson, and you stop Texas. While he ran for a little more than 150 yards on Arkansas, they were tough to come by for the most part. The quarterback - Young - wasn't much of a threat. Arkansas crowded the line and didn't give him a chance to run much. While Young hit a couple of relatively long passes, in each case there was a defensive breakdown and the receivers were wide open. I mean wide open. I didn't see Young really drill one in between tight coverage. And Arkansas was able to move the ball - both on the ground and in the air. Texas was saying all week that after they lost to Arkasnas last year, they vowed to get tougher. And I'll admit that their running attack was better statistically than it was last year against Arkansas. But this was supposedly the number 7 or 8 ranked team playing an unranked opponent that lost damn near every starter from last year - and they should have lost. Look for Oklahoma to bitch-slap them again this year. I can't wait...

I am more than pleasantly surprised as the offensive line. I'll be honest - I thought the line would be the major weak link this year. You're talking about learning completly new techniques, new mindset, new terminology - and then Incognito goes and screws up just before the season begins. And yet, despite all of that, our running attack is going well, the quarterback has had few pressures, much less sacks, and penalties in the line have been few and far between. Guys, that's remarkable when you consider it.

One point I'd like to address is the issue of the coaching staff - particularly Calahan - leaving if he's sucessful. Yes, that may happen. I can't deny it. But the point I think there are two points that need to be considered: 1. We don't know that he'll leave - certainly, his coaching history doesn't indicate that he's any more or less of a nomad than any other coach. A lot depends on what Callahan wants. But consider this - how many jobs are out there that are better than the head coach at NU? The fan support is unmatched; the resources are unmatched. Yes, recruiting may be more difficult than a Miami, USC or Texas - the base may not be there - but with the tradition NU has, it sure isn't impossible. If a coach is really looking for a place where he'll be given every opportunity to be sucessful and to have longevity, NU's the place if anyplace is. 2. The college football landscape has changed. The days of a Tom Osborne, a Vince Dooley, a Bear Bryant, or a Darryl Royal are long gone. There are myriad reasons for it - scholarship limitations and parity, "instant gratification" in society, and so on. The likelihood of any coach making an entire career at any institution is remote. But I think that NU is one of the few schools that might be able to pull it off. But more to the point - if it isn't possible to have longevity anymore, what I want is a coach who wants to win so he can move on as opposed to one that wants to do just enough to hang on. Living in Arkansas now, I've been exposed a lot to the Razorbacks. One thing that I noted is that number of assistant coaches that Frank Broyles had move on to head coaching positions when he was the Arkansas head coach. His philosophy is he wanted assistants that were hungry to get a head coaching position. Why? Because they'd do everything in their power to win and to prove they should move up. It's regrettable that this mentality has pervaded the head coaching ranks - Steve Spurrier is the perfect example. But if it has to happen, give me a head coach that's hungry to get the opportunity by winning at his current job.

Hey, I hope he keeps posting his picks - right or wrong, they're a great read! Keep it up Tom - very enjoyable!

Amen to all of that. What I'd love to see are a couple of 6'4" to 6'6" receivers with at least 4.5 speed. Guys that allow you to throw the ball up for grabs and can come down with it everytime. We have some receivers that are great possession receivers - who'll go over the middle and give up their body for the team - but we don't have that one or two gamebreakers that can't be defended. That would help tremendously. We're not that far away - just a piece here and there, a little more coaching sinking in, and we're back completely.

LOL! Yeah, but you were right, also!

I have to give them a "B". Overall, I liked the game plan. I was impressed with the adjustments at half-time - whether it was alignments/play-calling/corrections verses getting the players to play with more effort I can't say, but that's the mark of a good coaching staff, the ability to find a way to adjust and play better in the second half. And as I noted in another thread, most if not all of the glaring errors from the first game were corrected. I also agree with Eric's assessment - we did seem to be a little predictable on first down, but I think that may have been deliberate, to take some pressure off Dailey. Overall, I'm pleased with the coaching. Can't remember who said it, but it sure does appear that we won't be out-coached with this crew on the sidelines.

Armistead, I think you're spot on in your comments. Guys, this should be expected. I've said it before - I'll say it again. There are going to be games when Dailey looks All-Pro, and games like this. It's something we're going to have to live with while he grows into the role. I don't know if he can learn from this - but if he can, you can be sure the coaches will provide him with the training and reps to do so. As much as I hate any loss, better a non-conference loss. First goal - the North. For the most part, the team performed well. The kicking game errors were corrected. The defense looked good - we played a good team and held them in check for the most part. Except for a couple of breakdowns, I felt like the offensive line played well - their ability to change from a run-dominated offense to a more balance offense continues to impress me; I honestly thought we were going to have more problems in this area. And our running game looked good. Yes, the turnovers killed us. But I still see this team doing good things. Is this a rebuilding year? Well, yes, in a sense. Does that mean we can't win the North, and more? Nope - it can be done. This one is over - Southern Miss played well and deserves the win because the capitalized when they had to. Me, I'm going to put it behind me, chalk it up to one of those painful experiences from which hopefully we can learn and grow, and move on.

Ditto what RedCountry said. That's a class act, SoonerFan, and I appreciate it. And you're right - there are some striking similarities between what happened to OU and what's happening to NU. The good news is that, like OU, I think we have managed to place the program into excellent hands, and things should improve. The conference has traditionally been a contest between these two schools - and if it can't be this year, it will be again soon.

Dailey's not looking off his receivers - he's locking in and not going to his secondary looks. Blackshirts are doing reasonbly well, and except for a couple of slips, so is the offensive line. Dailey just needs to settle down and execute. With the rushing attack clicking as it is, all he has to do is hit a couple of passes - everything would open up then, and the running game would have some tremendous holes to run through. Well, this is to be expected. We're talking about a second-year quarterback who received no appreciable playing time last year and is learning a new offense this year.

Also, you should be able to get a first look at Texas - they play Arkansas Saturday night on either ESPN or ESPN2. Last year, Texas was ranked #5; Arkansas was unranked. Arkansas won by 10 in Austin. This year, Texas is ranked #7; Arkansas is unranked. Game is in Fayetteville, Arkansas. Of course, Arkansas lost 18 starters. But if Texas doesn't blow them out, you have to conclude that the Longhorns are again overrated. Should be an interesting contest.

I wanted to take an opportunity to inform the Board of something that I think is a worthy cause. The makers of M&M candies have teamed up with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation to raise funds through the sale of their new “pink & white" M&M candies. For each 8-ounce bag of the special candies sold, the makers of M&M (Masterfoods) will donate 50 cents to the foundation. These special bags of M&Ms will be on sale now through November, 2004 (the bags are clearly marked). The next time you want a treat, please pick up a bag – you’ll be donating to a foundation that is dedicated to helping to diagnose, treat and cure this disease. This year alone, an estimated 216,000 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in American women, and 40,000 deaths – it could be your wife, girlfriend, mother, sister or someone else you know. This is your opportunity to help. If you need more information regarding this, or want to provide it for someone else, the M&M web site below provides it: http://us.mms.com/us/news/promotions/komen/index.jsp Okay, done with the public service announcement...

Kerry...

This is something put out by the Big 10 conference in August: The Big Ten office announced today that 12 of the League's 16 non-conference home football games scheduled to appear on television will feature the Conference's experimental instant replay system. The four schools that did not grant their approval for use of the system were Arizona State (Sept. 11 at Northwestern), UCLA (Sept. 11 at Illinois), Iowa State (Sept. 11 at Iowa) and San Diego State (Sept. 18 at Michigan). The NCAA Football Rules Committee granted the Big Ten the right to experiment with instant replay on a one-year basis for all televised games at League stadiums in 2004. While all 44 Big Ten games will utilize this system, visiting teams during non-conference contests must approve the usage of instant replay. The remaining 12 non-conference opponents consented to the use of instant replay, while the system will be unavailable for the six home games not scheduled to be televised (Florida A&M and Western Michigan at Illinois; Central Michigan at Indiana; Illinois State at Minnesota; Kansas at Northwestern; Ball State at Purdue).

Ah, but you have to see the whole picture! I look at this, and all I can think of when I see Bush here is he's saying, "Football. This is a football, right????""

I suspect that the line moves based on the talent of the individual...

Thanks. One thing about the option - the receivers came in damn well knowing they'd have to learn to block. Every iteration of the West Coast offense I've seen ran best when the receivers understood that their blocking was essential to allowing the one catching the ball to make yards after the catch.

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! Bless you, Red November!

Since I couldn't see the game, one thing I was wondering about is how the receivers did with their downfield blocking. To make this offense go, the recievers that aren't getting the ball on a play need to be able to at least tie up their man. Did they do that? So far, it's something I haven't heard a word about...

Please, dear God, let Arkansas be in the region!!!!

And let's see if this wasn't a case of either first-game jitters or simply poor mechanics that can be fixed during the week. As noted, he did well when it actually caught it - he could simply be taking his eye off the ball to look at the rushers.

I'm a little surprised LSU didn't drop just a bit. They trailed most of the game, and had to go into overtime to get the win. You'd think the voters would have been influenced by that a bit...

I don't know if any one saw the Colorado - Colorado State game, but CU should have lost. CSU had the ball on about the three yard line with 40 seconds left. Should have been able to punch it in, but ran it and couldn't get lined up in time to run another play. Had they passed, at least the clock would have stopped.

Sports Illustrated had a lengthy article about them a few issues ago. What's amazing about them is that they seem to do it right for a private school. Don't really recruit. Don't have super athletes for the most part. They just run like a machine on offense. A line in the article struck me. One coach who had lost to them was watching the film and noted that when the ball was snapped, the offensive lineman moved at precisely the same moment, in unision. Something that coach had never seen in the high school ranks.

Could be that this is a sort of last-ditch attempt to straighten him out. If he can't be on the sidelines, he feels he's no longer part of the team in any capacity. If he's on the sidelines, he still feels he has a chance to make amends and return. And to me, at least, sitting on the sidelines, listening to my team mates and the coaches - well, that would fuel my fire to do whatever I had to in order to return.