3rd and long

How is he to know? Suprised him?

Damn Cooper , that was a really good throw.

Maybe if you have better mechanics, throws like that don't sail high and away.

Hey, finally got my password to work here at work so I can post again. Dude and Bshirt, I'm sorry, I should have written that the feeling (I get) from some posters is that he is virtually infallable and going to be a front runner for the heisman (which he might end up being). Obvioulsy no one has come out and written that he has nothing to work on, but many, many posts gloss over what needs to done in favor of the numbers he puts up. My main point, which maybe I didn't get across very well was that you cannot criticize him on this board without someone really taking you to task about it. I think I've voiced my opinion on him enough, and it obviously is not in agreement with some. I'll go with Knapplc's previous post in that we really all are rooting for the same guy and the same team and leave it at that.

I think a lot of people are misconstruing what a lot of other people are saying. Just because some (I'm one of them) have some critical things to say about certain aspects of his game doesn't automatcally mean we don't like him or want him replaced (I realize some probably do, but they are in the minority). You can note weaknesses in a player without it being bashing. Is he our best QB, almost certainly, does he do some incredible things on the field...absolutely. But he does have some issues that DO need to be addresed to make him better? Yes. Anyone who thinks that is not true has their head stuck in the sand. I think he has a weak throwing motion and at some point that will manifest itself on the field, but I'm yelling as loud as anyone else when he breaks another long one. An intersting analgy is a golf forum when Tiger Woods is discussed. If you say anything negative about him, you are automatically labeled a "hater" by his fans, and I see a lot of that here. I see a strong possibility of him being a four year QB and putting up astounding career numbers, but I also think those numbers can become truely mind blowing if he can improve in certain areas. For what it's worth, I would imagine we would have had the same discussions about Tommy and Frost if the internet had been available then.

Interceptions are a product of decision-making more than mechanics. But mechanics can do make a big difference, thats why the NFL tries to work over many young QBs. Why not attempt to make them better. And as to Husker QB's with good mechanics, remember Vince Feraggamo and David Humm, they both threw it beautifully.

I'm torn, Like a lot of people I think the black jerseys look good. But it really does seem to be something lesser programs do. Seems like changing colors is not something we need to do.

Maybe we need to hire Wormser as our QB coach, he is an expert in aerodynamics you know

??? Was anybody down on Burkhead last week? As far as I remember, people were down on the O-Line, not Rex. There was a thread (not sure of the title) where people were saying Burkhead just wasn't good enough to get it done. Wasn't fast enough, etc. I'm not making this up. I can see where some might think that way. He's not really a homerun threat in the way that TM and Abdulla are, and sometimes he looks just a tiny bit slow or late getting into the hole or crease (I thought I noticed this a couple of time against Fresno), but is there anyone you would rather have when you have to have two tough yards.

I'll go with Rex, for one play if nothing else. I believe we were third and four or five somewhere in the fourth and really needed to move the chains at that point in the game. Option play, TM is forced to pitch pretty deep to Rex who is about to get hit immediately most likely for a loss. That spin move to avoid the first guy and ensure the first down and was a thing of beauty, then he added another for a couple extra yards. I just love the fact that he almost always finishes a run going forward. I've been one who's pretty critical of TM, but I give him props today, he played pretty well (although I don't know if I'll ever get used to a NU QB sliding or stepping out of bounds). I still think he needs a lot of work throwing the ball, but I love the way he's protecting it. But he's got to either slide or lower the shoulder, if he continues to just basically stop before contact he's not going to last. I absolutely loved the pass fake he made, getting the rusher to jump to try and block the pass, but where was he throwing that ball afterwards?

How big is green? He looks like he really has trouble jamming at the line. Receivers seem to out muscle him without being held up, and then he's always playing catch up. Wasn't he the corner in the Chattanooga game that locked up at the line of scrimmage and kind of got pushed backwards and fell over?Prince was so strong at the line he could really prevent them from getting into their route, with how big and strong some of these receivers are now Green really looks mismatched at times when he's jamming.

Agree. Honestly, the part that bugged me most was when he basically said we played dirty. UW players were literally jumping on Taylor's head when he was on the ground. And I should have prefaced bysaying that I have not seen what he said. But saying we played dirty would bug me too, maybe I'm looking at through my scarlet and cream colored glasses, but I've never seen much of what I would consider dirty play from us.

I'd give him a pass. An emotional game and when you do receive a couple of bad calls, they magnify in your mind, get even worse as you continue to think about them. Plus, I liked his demeaner on the field. I noticed several times he was helping up a Husker and/or patting them on the helment on his way back to the huddle. Call me oldschool (which would be very true), but I really like to see those little shows of sportsmanship on the field.

Man that guy must be tough, he takes some hits out there. I just hope he can stay healthy, cause the young guys look really talented, but they sure look small. I don't how long any of the three would last as an everydown (or even a 20 carry guy) back.

Did they really say this was one of the better crews in the Big 10. No matter what anyone says, the first intereference call was big, without it, most likely we go trailing at halftime. If I were a Husky fan, I would be pissed. I know they were bad both ways, but that one was glaring. EDIT: I was posting this while the last post went up. No way am I saying I agree with the previous post. I thought they were bad, but....

I'm curious if you've ever gotten to see highlights of Rogers, or possibly were lucky enough to watch him live? Rarely did anyone square him up for a hit, it was much more likely to see him leaving defenders grasping at straws. After the Chattanooga game, I had said Abdullah reminded me of Rogers, and when he put that move on the Fresno defender, it was even more so. Johnny was a special player. If you weren't lucky enough to get the watch the 71 Huskers, you really missed a special treat. You don't realize how great Oklahoma was that year too. And how much of a stud was Jeff Kinny?

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing. Yes a score is a score is a score. But again, that's too simplistic. Every TD is six point on the board, but can have a vastly different effect on the game. I would rather have us use a 10 play eight minute drive for a TD, which gives our defense time to rest and adjust, and then possibly come back out and get a three-and out, then a two play, one minute drive for the same six points. After which our D, which just came off the field, heads right back out. Yes, both are worth six points. But which one just benefited our team more? Sorry to post in here again, saying the same thing. Damn, I'm so computer challenged, why all of a sudden can I not quote and reply correctly? Totally see where you're coming from, and you're not wrong. Thing is, neither of us are really wrong. It's not like a TD is ever a bad thing. Abdullah ran a kick back and the defense had to go right back out on the field and nobody was mad at him, were they? But I get the rest/scheme thing. Blake Lawrence was on the radio as I was driving home talking about that, how you're not just catching your breath, you're drawing up plans and scheming for what the offense is doing, and of course that's helpful. But again, this has more to do with the offense not executing than it has to do with scoring too fast, or "relying on the big play." Drives aren't sustained because blocks aren't made, or coverages aren't read, or penalties are made, or any number of reasons. That's the problem, not the fact that Taylor can score from anywhere on the field, or that Bell can, or Turner, or whomever. Good post, and I agree. I think we should let it fade away and both be right! And more importantly, see if I can figure out how to reply (my daughter will be home from college tomorrow, maybe she can help me ) Oh, and by the way, I was mad at Abdullah, I flipped away and he ran it back too fast, I missed it. But that's ok, because Bo's facial expression has he looked up was priceless.

Because there is no defense for the assertion that "we rely too much on the big play." It's a statement that means nothing. A score is a score is a score is a score. I've been saying that this whole thread long, and people keep replying to my posts as if this isn't true. It is true. Six points from a one-play, 95-yard drive equal the same six points from a 10-play, 74-yard drive. It is not a bad thing to be able to score every single time you touch the ball. It is, actually, a good thing. Yes a score is a score is a score. But again, that's too simplistic. Every TD is six point on the board, but can have a vastly different effect on the game. I would rather have us use a 10 play eight minute drive for a TD, which gives our defense time to rest and adjust, and then possibly come back out and get a three-and out, then a two play, one minute drive for the same six points. After which our D, which just came off the field, heads right back out. Yes, both are worth six points. But which one just benefited our team more? Sorry to post in here again, saying the same thing. Damn, I'm so computer challenged, why all of a sudden can I not quote and reply correctly?

I honestly think it doesn't matter how well we move the ball. We've got no chance at winning the Big 12. VA Husker Fan regrets the errant post, which saunders45 picked off and took to the house. I was going for the home run post. But dammit, I wasn't relying on it! Howz about the Big 10? If you could have just sustained that post for a little longer, maybe time would have run out and saunders45 would not have been able to take it back for the win.

The myriad of coaches over the years agree that to win, you need to outscore your opponent. Yes or no - would you want Oregon's 2010 offense? -------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, you win, we score more we win, we'll stay with that simplistic outlook and stop looking beyond the numbers on the scoreboard. We're 2-0 because we've scored more points than our opponents, so there must not be anything to worry about correct? What do I win? Oh yeah - I win a conversation with you, which is what I wanted in the first place. Looks like we both win. (presuming you're enjoying this, which I hope you are) I know I gave the ridiculously overly-simplistic approach, but you're either ignoring my point or I'm not making it very well. The point that I am trying to make is that a score is a score is a score, and this stat, two weeks into the season, is overblown. Over the course of a season you have a point, that it's good to have a better ratio in T.O.P. because you won't wear your defense out so much. But there's a great example, from last season, where that stat is blown up. Sure, to have that stat be meaningful this year we'd have to be as good as Oregon's offense and we most definitely are not, but that's what we're trying to build to. Maybe we get there next year, which means this year is lost as an experiment, but the way I see it is, if we're building to Oregon's offense, these growing pains are acceptable. Certainly not fun, and I wish they were done, but if the end product is a high-powered offense, I'm willing to put up with a "bad" offense for a while. You know, I do very much enjoy the discussion. It's such a refreshing change of pace. I'm also a follower of Neb High School sports, and the board where that is discussed gets really old in a hurry. Name calling and childish posts. Obviously, there are a few here, but for the most part, opinions are at least presented with mostly well thought out reasoning. I don't think the T.O.P. stat is overblown, I believe if it is something we don't correct it will come back and bite us in the a** at some point this season. I know a score is a score, but much like TM's stats (OH no, shouldn't go there again!!), I really believe we have to be able to look past the numbers to be able to see if they are giving us the complete picture. And right now, I believe we are a better team in the stat column than we really are on the field. But like you've also said numerous times, things could really look different after this weekend.

It's been a long time since I've seen anyone get to top speed so quickly. It's about two steps and he's in top gear. You've got to wonder what goes through defenders minds as they think they've got the angle, and it dissapears so fast. Woodhead got to top speed like that in a hurry.

The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have. Yes, I definitely think Oregon would have won the Big XII last year. I don't think anyone in the Big XII could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game, but Oregon came within three points of doing just that. All of which is irrelevant, because we lost to Oklahoma by three points. One TD is all it would have taken to win that game. One. It wouldn't have mattered if that TD had come on a 10-play drive or a one-play drive, from one yard or 80 yards. Let's focus on what we're discussing here - sustaining long drives. I've shown that this is not a relevant need. We can win without long, sustained drives. We just need to score more points than the other team. All you've shown is you don't believe that sustaing long drives is relevant, I'm more inclined to go along with the myriad of coachs over the years who do believe it is of importance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point. The myriad of coaches over the years agree that to win, you need to outscore your opponent. Yes or no - would you want Oregon's 2010 offense? -------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, you win, we score more we win, we'll stay with that simplistic outlook and stop looking beyond the numbers on the scoreboard. We're 2-0 because we've scored more points than our opponents, so there must not be anything to worry about correct?

The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have. Yes, I definitely think Oregon would have won the Big XII last year. I don't think anyone in the Big XII could have beaten Auburn in the MNC game, but Oregon came within three points of doing just that. All of which is irrelevant, because we lost to Oklahoma by three points. One TD is all it would have taken to win that game. One. It wouldn't have mattered if that TD had come on a 10-play drive or a one-play drive, from one yard or 80 yards. Let's focus on what we're discussing here - sustaining long drives. I've shown that this is not a relevant need. We can win without long, sustained drives. We just need to score more points than the other team. All you've shown is you don't believe that sustaing long drives is relevant, I'm more inclined to go along with the myriad of coachs over the years who do believe it is of importance. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter. Wouldn't we also have won if we had just one more play that scored from 80 yards out? What's the difference between a long, sustained drive and a one-play drive when the margin is three points? The difference is that maybe if one our scores is of that long, clock eating variety, it may take away one or two extra possesions from the opposing offense. Long TD plays are great, but there is a reason why coachs talk about TOP, and getting the defense off the field. Ignoring the fact that controlling the ball and the clock is a huge component of championship teams is akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. And sure Oregon made the title game, but c'mon, we all know that conference is poor, who did they have to beat week in and week and out to win. Do you think they would have won the Big XII last year with those numbers? Heck, I think we might have been able to handle them, Oklahoma surely would have.

They may not be crucial, but in that championship game, if we had mounted a couple of long, time consuming drives where the defense was not on the field, maybe they wouldn't have collapsed and given up 17 points in the second quarter.