Stuntz 2 Crouch

Taylor can't pass. you can't really develop that. That's up to the coaching staff to determine after spring ball and the summer. It's the entire coaching staffs obligation to get the most out of every player, at every position quarterback included. Politics and any egos aside the responsibility lies with the coaches maybe more on a H.C., to put the best team on the field. I don't care what name is on back of any jersey at any position as long as that player is the best available and going to give 100% for the Big Red. This job again, is the coaches and they are responsible.

There are a lot of great points being made in this thread. Taking all of them into consideration I think the fact remains it is the coaching staffs obligation to the University, the team, and the fans to put the best quarterback on the field come next fall period. The quarterback that gives the HUSKERS the best chance of winning needs to be unnder center. Doing what is right is not always the easiest thing, but it is their obligation and their job as coaches. If that's T. Mart then o.k. but the decision made needs to be what's best for all as no one person or player is bigger or more important than the program.

I live in Az. and watch the Pac-10 (without much choice thank you biased T.V.) and I'm telling you "THEY ARE WHO YOU THINK THEY ARE".. or something like that. Unless the cheer squad shows up and plays against "U-Dub", we will beat them buy at least 24. If the cheer squad plays, it's even and only because the game is being played on the west coast. So relax, pet a penguin (your avatar) and get some rest. We're still Nebraska, and they're still Washington and that's not going to change between now and kick-off.

Well I know I'll get beat up for this but It's not whether or not he's a good fit or would be a good O.C; the question is can we afford to pay him AND FEED HIM ? "The police said I had the right to remain silent..but I just didn't have the ability" (Ron White as best as I remember)

Hard to say if that was in the realm of possibility for Taylor. The bigger question is if other QBs should have been considered, with Taylor not having the one thing that separates him and makes him great. Not that the other alternative would light it up, but if it would not be a steadying and safer, more effective option. Sticking with Taylor when he doesn't have 80% of what makes him dangerous is the decision that is interesting. As Bo said at the beginning of the year, Taylor separated from the pack because he forced defenses to defend 11 on 11, and that was introduced as a new criteria. Otherwise the other QBs graded out higher. Good point. I think a lot of the time these %'s are thrown around whether it's about a players health or a myriad of other topics. I think that the "mystery" that surrounds a players health is only truly known by select trainers, medical staff, and coaching staff. And as we all know most of the time that is a well guarded secret, especially concerning "star" players status unless truly obvious (like seeing a player suffer a devestating injury on-screen or in person). And then the "game begins" as to try and guess what other players will play, or who will be used and to what extent. Point well taken.

I agree, Watson's schemes were flawless. Just a shame our guys suck so hard. You missed the point. ANY scheme that fits your personnel will work as long as the execution is there. I am not advocating Watson's termination because I hate the read option, or think he should have run off tackle instead of off guard on this particular play. It has to do with the fact that the offensive culture appears to be one that is extremely unfocused and mistake prone. It also seems to be prevalent regardless of position, whether it's running backs that put the ball on the turf, receivers dropping 7-8 balls in a single game, a quarterback that takes bad sacks, an offensive line that kills drives with pre-snap penalties, etc. Going to a different formation with a different philosophy skirts the issue that these guys are ill-prepared, and that starts in the spring and continues throughout the season. Asking a team that all ready can't execute its offense for more than 2 consecutive plays to change its philosophy week to week is ridiculous. What's always funny about a team that has a great offense is how all the fans look at the scheme, as if they have found some unbelievable formula for moving the ball. They're STILL playing with 11 guys. Guess what? Florida SUCKED this year, even though they were running the exact same offense they were when they pounded teams and were winning national championships. No defensive coordinators are looking at Oregon's offense as some kind of black art. They SEE what they're doing, but what worries them is how WELL they do it. How they don't miss blocks, and how their running backs make you pay when you make a mistake. Talent and execution. These are very good points that have been pointed out, however I have to disagree to a certain extent. When I began this topic my intent was to suggest that with T. Martinez at less than 100%, other offensive formations have or should be considered. Even with the success we had running the "zone read" with Burkhead it goes without saying you simply can not use one offensive formation with only a shotgun variation during an entire game and be successful especially when it isn't working. (please re-read again before commenting using offenses that have had success with one formation and a slight variation, like Oregon). The key words here are formations and success. I totally agree with what has been said about execution, discipline, and the personnel you have running a particular scheme. Again I concur and using Florida was a great example (that's a compliment). With all of that in mind I pose the question again, why not the "I"... as a optional offensive formation ? There were also many great posts pointing out that it wouldn't be best to have Helu and Burkhead in the backfield at the same time. Well I agree there may be other combinations using a true fullback instead of those two in at the same time. But the point I was trying to make is that you have to do something different than just the "zone read" and a shotgun formation. Have you taken the time to wonder why those plays were NOT executed well? It was because any defense that see's that, or any formation enough times is going to become aggresive and defend against it very well. Making it hard to execute (point noted and taken). I'm not saying that the plays ran out of the "zone read" formation or many others were executed to perfection in the CCG game, but I do know if I was a defensive coordinator preparing for NEBRASKA even mid-way thru the season with T. Martinez healthy or not, I WOULD PREPARE AND TAKE THE "ZONE READ" AWAY. Key on Martinez, dedicate a man to what ever back is in there and simply put a hat-on-a-hat, pin my ears back and come after you. Do I have the personnel for that? Who knows, depends on who the team is and again how healthy Martinez is. But I'd do my damndest not to let you "surprise" me with the "zone read". So back to the begining. Personally I think the "I" would be a great alternative offensive formation that could be as successful as any other (if executed as mentioned). I'm not suggesting that the team has to "change it's philosophy week to week" as you stated. Simply be a little more diverse and possibly more succesful offensively and not so PREDICTIBLE.

Good point(s). I think one of the main reasons I want to see the "I" is because without Martinez @ 100%, those split second decisions (reads) he has to make and possibly take off, the defense has had time to react and close down any running lanes. With him @ 100%, agreed it's simple and it works. The "I" just may be a great addition right now as another formation to use to keep defenses guessing.

Great responses so far all with good points. In trying not to write a novel in the opening I agree that the "I" may not be THE answer. And as pointed out, it's not an X-Box and there could be great combinations of backs used in the formation.. so as mentioned "Helu and Burkhead" back there at the same time wouldn't work, I ask or would it? As quick as that combinations potential success was dismissed...it would/could cause confussion in the defense. And as quick as a defense might "load the box" in expectation of the run, Aha! fake run or power dive and pass to keep them honest. Especially if those backs "rotated" in and out in combination with other backs in quick succession. And yes Helu is great at making a move, getting outside and blasting downfield exactly what happens when running the "I". Again read the first..MANY plays can be run from the "I". And I'm not saying to abandon the zone read, just add the "I".. mix it up, keep em' guessing. Again not saying it is THE answer or should be the only formation or combination, I would just love to see it used more and think running plays that are designed for the back to hit the hole quick and get the back at least to the "second level" of the defense, could be and has been successful. Great discussion. Please proceed (insert Billy Madison voice and hand gesture)...

After dissapointing results from the last games of the season including the CCG loss to Oklahoma, many topics were started debating what went wrong. There are almost as many topics as opinions regarding what went wrong. The offense and lack of offensive production and play calling have been hot topics. In response to those topics I ask again, why aren't we running the "I" ? In my opinion with Martinez at less than 100%, the "I" makes sense. It would allow two very outstanding running backs in Burkhead and Helu to be in the backfield at the same time. With Martinez under center, there are numerous offensive plays that can be ran in that formation including pass plays. Even with Martinez at 100%, the "zone read" takes time execute or develop. Too much time against speedy defenses such as Oklahoma, especially with Martinez at less than 100%. Much of the success that Nebraska has had running the "zone read" this year was with Martinez at full strength, and only his unique athleticism and quickness made many plays and that offensive scheme successful. Nebraska's glourious past was achieved using great athletes, running the "I" formation. Names like Gill, Redwine, Rozier, Frazier, Craig, Rathman, Crouch, Rodgers, Green, Makovicka and many others, acquired success that translated to NEBRASKA VICTORIES running out of the "I" formation. Quick hitting, mis-directional plays are what's needed and on order for the Nebraska offense. I'm not saying that we have to run the option on every down out of the "I", but it's my opinion at this point in time considering the health and lack of productivity in the offense, it's time to line up in the "I" like days of old and send a message to defenses: "WERE NEBRASKA, WERE GOING TO LINE UP AND PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH, AND RUN THE BALL. TRY AND STOP US". So again why not the "I" ? All comments and discussion welcome.

I think Rex Burkhead should have something to say about that. Yeah, OU's first five drives lasted a minute and a half or so on average. The next drive lasted nothing because we got a pick on the first play. The next two went for 80, and 71 yards, respectively. So this is incorrect. The offense was alright, we were up 17-0. The reason the defense gave up so many yards? Cassidy bites on a fake, Hagg gets beat, etc, etc. There were a few miscues amidst a sea of great play by the D, but those handful of mistakes were all very costly. Credit to OU on this to. From then on the offense did play like crap though. Defense AND offense are to blame. So Osbornes INT did not set up a score?????? Cassidy did bite on the play action, but recovered enough to make a play on the ball. After Tmart threw the INT into the endzone OU went 80 yards pretty quickly, Ou had the big MO at that point. Ou was 1 for 16 on 3rd down, usually when that happens your gonna win the game. Defense did what they had to do to win the game..... Up 17-0 we gotta close the game out we didnt, OU got confident and adjusted something NU hasnt done very well. The defense played very well, and you have to remember this was Oklahoma, a very good team with a potentially explosive offense. huskerscott had it right, "did you watch the game"? Turnovers and terrible offensive play calling was the reason for the loss.

I think Cody's grandma would have stood a chance there on some of those sacks Taylor took. Slight exaggeration but I'd be surprised if Cody took sacks with all kinds of time like Taylor did. Then, maybe he throws some picks or fumbles so you never know. He had time on a few plays and made boneheaded plays by not throwing the ball away. But for the most part the o-line was getting torched all night. Let's be honest with ourselves here. Correction. The oline was getting torched EXCEPT when we ran the wildcat. Funny how a run blocking oline can succeed with a running game plan. So if enough heat is on watson does he take the vandy job? I wanted to see them in the "I" formation with Helu and Burhead behind Martinez. Hit em' quick or mis-direction. The zone read was taking way too long to develop with Martinez at less than 100%.

If you need gas money I'm in...