nebraskan-N-texas Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Let me ask you guy’s a question and this may sound crazy and I am sure it is. At dinner tonight a gentlemen noticed my Nebraska shirt and asked if I watched the game. I told him yes and he went into spat informing me that the Wake Forest game was nothing but a ploy. I asked him to go into more detail about what he meant. He said Nebraska could have one that game by 50 points if they really wanted to, but they wanted to look weak and surprise USC next week. Was this guy just drunk and talking out of his a** or do you believe that there might be some truth behind this? IMO, this guy is an idiot. Please give me your opinions; again, I know this sounds crazy. Quote Link to comment
TX-Husker-2011 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 He started early today... Quote Link to comment
EbylHusker Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 The guy is an idiot, as you said. Quote Link to comment
husker rob Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 well that is one conspiracy to think about. NU did make a lot of plays when they had to, but i seriously doubt it was planned that way Quote Link to comment
papersun87 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I don't know if we meant to deliberately look bad (think if we would have lost . . . on purpose!), but I DO think that Callahan and Cosgrove were playing it pretty vanilla. We heard over the summer about some of Cosgrove's crazy new defensive schemes and we didn't see a SINGLE one of them, even when Wake Forest was shoving that end-around down our throats every single down. And the offense? Every play was either a run up the middle or a ten-yard pass route. Keller looked uncomfortable, but I think the best way to let him GET comfortable was to call like we called that last drive of the second half, and look what happened: we walked down the field and scored. Easily. Callahan was DEFINITELY calling it conservative. Quote Link to comment
nebraskan-N-texas Posted September 9, 2007 Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 The guy is an idiot, as you said. Good to know! Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Road game, we've always struggled on the road, formidable oppponent...how *can* you call it vanilla? Quote Link to comment
I Bleed RED Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 This has been our offense and defense under BC so I don't see what we did different to try and hide anything. We almost lost, I don't think anything was a ploy. That might be the dumbest guy on earth or drunkest. They might try not to pull out trick plays or show some blitzing schemes but they didn't tell Keller to miss his timing with his receivers and the ends to crash the corners and not stay home on defense. Quote Link to comment
Husker_x Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Do I think it was planned? No, not to the extent which we kept the score as close as it was. But lemme tell you this: that playbook was all but closed on that game. Despite the passing, there was very little motion. USC won't be able to observe what the shifts indicate for this coming week. I think we would have opened up that team a loooot more for the run if we would have shifted in and out of different looks. The game was all but a home game, so I don't think you can account for it with the crowd factor. Anyway, I doubt that was intentional. But If it was, and we see a whole different team come Saturday, then we'll have to call Callahan the most brilliant coach in history, with balls the size of Texas (and we all know everything is bigger in Texas). Kind of interesting to think about, though.... And USC must be razed to the ground. Quote Link to comment
I Bleed RED Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Let me get this straight.....The team shouldn't look past Wake to next week but the coaches changed the playbook and left it that way during a close game because they play USC next week? Seriously, maybe if they played Ball St. but not against Wake on the road in a close game. I would be shocked if that was the case. I think they would have opened up the playbook after the game stayed close. Quote Link to comment
MCAT800 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 It was a conspriacy, it started on 9-4-04. BC and Cos new when they played W. Illinois in their first game that they would be playing USC on 9-15-07 and they didn't want to show their cards. And three years later, nobody still knows their secrets..... Quote Link to comment
husker rob Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Do I think it was planned? No, not to the extent which we kept the score as close as it was. But lemme tell you this: that playbook was all but closed on that game. Despite the passing, there was very little motion. USC won't be able to observe what the shifts indicate for this coming week. I think we would have opened up that team a loooot more for the run if we would have shifted in and out of different looks. The game was all but a home game, so I don't think you can account for it with the crowd factor. Anyway, I doubt that was intentional. But If it was, and we see a whole different team come Saturday, then we'll have to call Callahan the most brilliant coach in history, with balls the size of Texas (and we all know everything is bigger in Texas). Kind of interesting to think about, though.... And USC must be razed to the ground. we will see a totally different team on the 15th. after watching the game today there is no way that the players were not looking into the future somewhat. Hate them as much as you want but Lee and Kirk called it on Gameday and said that NU would walk away with a very close win because of the NU team looking ahead. Quote Link to comment
I Bleed RED Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 If you think giving up 236 yds is looking ahead you are mistaken. Keller's timing was off with the receivers, the ends didn't stay home and our safeties got burned...not looking ahead. We are not as good as we thought after the Nevada game and Wake is more physical than we thought. I think they underestimated Wake but not because of USC. Quote Link to comment
black label society Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 If you think giving up 236 yds is looking ahead you are mistaken. Keller's timing was off with the receivers, the ends didn't stay home and our safeties got burned...not looking ahead. We are not as good as we thought after the Nevada game and Wake is more physical than we thought. I think they underestimated Wake but not because of USC. Why are you so dissapointed the Huskers bearly won? In your eyes this staff sucks and the players are over rated. You got what you have been saying all along. This staff sucks and the players suck. You been right on since the begining. So when the Huskers bearly win, then why are you so pissed off. Quote Link to comment
I Bleed RED Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Black label...nice work not talking about my points rather discussing me. Anyway, I am happy we won but I am concerned we gave up 236 yds rushing. My point was we were not looking ahead but perhaps we took Wake too lightly regardless of USC. I don't think our players are overrated...I have never said that. I think our team win against Nevada made us look better than we might be. I am a huge Keller fan and I like our linebackers coming into the season. What is your problem? I am not pissed off at all. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.