Fire Shawn Watson

[zoogs]

"The coaches are not developing these players or putting them in a good position to succeed."

 

I can agree with that, but you are no longer talking about SW at this point. More simply put, Watson is not responsible for doing Cotton or Gilmore's jobs.

 

Moreover, he isn't responsible if they don't do their jobs either, because the decision to keep them or not comes from Bo.

[bshirt]

im not complaining about running. im complaining about a lack of points. you know, in the games we lose? like when our offensive line suddenly turns french and we cant seem to score on heidi fleiss. stuff like that. tired of watching amazing defensive AND special teams efforts being swept under the rug by complete offensive failure.

 

So it just doesn't occur to anyone that teams may just be better than NU? Nah its the coaches fault right?

 

edit: IMO i just think this team is still not quite undefeated material, they have made great strides under Bo, and I am overly excited about the future, but this day in college football it is rare that you can run the table year in and year out, and with the change to the Big might make it tougher, i think teams get better with the consistency of the staff.

 

So it never occurs to you that there is reason they're always better on one side of the ball? Always the "same" side of the ball? Nah it's just the players fault right?

 

So all the great players we have on offense then they should be able to execute any play to the fullest that get brought to the huddle right? I am as frustrated as anyone with this offense, but if you want a coaching carousel at NU then call for coaches heads everytime something happens. It worked when we brought in Pelini for the D, but what sort of offensive genius is NU going to get to make it so much better with the talent they have now?

Answer me this, if Martinez did not get hurt and kept his hype as a Heisman candidate and this Offense putting up 30-40 pts a game with him, do we have this discussion?

 

 

Even with an outrageously talented and healthy TMart, two stud rbs & an improved OLine we still were 2009 vs Texas (zero TDs) and freakin South Dakota State (two TDs). Even with both games at Lincoln. So even with overwhelming talent advantage SW still manages to look hopelessly inept.

 

You would rather go through a couple decades of disastrous COZ, Callahan & Bohl humiliations than man up and hold someone accountable. We pulled the trigger on Callahan to get Bo and the results have been electrifying. Let's pony up on the last dead weight we have.

[3rd and long]

you know whats really scary? one of my buddies started arguing that the offense has actually gotten worse, more inconsistent, under watson since callahan left. and he was making sense.

 

Since when did anyone expect the offense to get better with Callahan's departure?

 

We had good offenses under Callahan. OL technician, masterful with screen passes and always good for some trick play packages within our multiple offense, which was very demanding on the QB. Guy is basically a genius in this regard. The problem was our defense. Everyone was saying we just need a good defense to win championships, and a strong running game and that was it. Well, now we have a running game and a good defense, and we have been winning games, including being dang close to a BCS bowl last year and having a good shot at one this year.

 

All of a sudden though, that's not enough, people want to ring up flashy eye-candy stats and points, instead of playing smart, conservative, and grinding it out. For example, was the KU game ever in doubt? Not really. 49 rushes for 230 yards (4.7 avg), that's stout running. Against ISU, 52 rushes for 235 yards (4.5 avg). 48 rushes for 205 yards (4.3) against SDSU. As you can see, running it 70% of the time in a game and pounding it on the ground real well on a team might not result in the total yardage and touchdowns fireworks people expect, but it's a certain philosophy to a game and the one that seems to suit Nebraska fans' stylistic preferences most...except they are complaining about it.

 

 

I'm not complaining about pounding the ball with the running game, that's what I've been wanting all year. A fullback leading one of our two outstanding RB's. But we seem to get away from that because we are obsessed with the zone read (which I admit at times has been spectacular, because of Martinez)and questionable calls. Third and two in the A&M game after we've marched it down the field with Helu and Burkhead and we drop back pass (and yes I do admit, if it goes for a big play, we're probably all saying what a great call, yes we're all fickle). I would really love to see us get Helu and Burkhead 20 carries each against OU. But our OL really has to step up, and we HAVE to eliminate the procedures and illegal formation penalties, and not burn timeouts because we can't get the play in on time.

 

 

that is a real concern, getting plays in on offense and defense....a hurry up offense kills substitutions and kills a defense set for the next play. at one time earlier this year i thought our offense was going to run a hurry up sequence or 2, but we fell back to the same, boring or methodical huddle and time consuming march up to the ball.....what the hell happened to varying the tempo? what the hell happened to mixing things up?

 

To me, that simple sentence really sums up what we need to do. Just try to not be so damn predictable.

This chain of comments made me laugh. So we want Watson to pound the ball, but not be boring or methodical, and still be unpredictable and mix things up.

 

Yes, you can "pound" the rock and not be predictable. I said I'd like to see 20 carries apiece for both backs. Thats pounding. Mix it in with a little playaction (preferably early in the series, not always 3rd and long), some misdirection, show some verticle passing game. Combine that with a few QB carries, which we always have and what do you have? A predomnatly power running game with enough "other" stuff thrown in to not be predictable. I'm not asking for 40+ points, just some sustained drives of which at least a couple lead to TD's. Combine that with what Henry and it should produce 20-24 points, and hopefully that is enough for our D.

[zoogs]

I'm a little confused by the perception here because I think we *have* been mixing it up. Not all the change-up plays work, but unless we're in conservative Bo-trying-to-win-with-D mode, it's not like we are handing off every down for a dive up the middle.

 

Few things to keep in mind.

 

1) You are pretty much calling for everything in the playbook. Yeah, throw in some vertical passing, throw in some misdirection runs, some playaction (at least you didn't include rollout passes, which Taylor is NOT good at). I can't comment specifically, but one thing to bear in mind is that we had to simplify and strip down the playbook a lot for a young, learning on the ropes QB as Taylor. We aren't as multiple as Wats would like it, I'm sure. But within the confines of what we are capable of doing, we do still mix it up.

 

2) We are predominantly power running IMO, but we also take our shots and we do change it up a bit. Unfortunately, whenever it doesn't work and sometimes even when it does, people say Watson is going away from what is working. A common line is that we are clearly running it down their throats, but then why do we ever throw the ball or try to run outside. :facepalm Examples of changing it up are running it up the gut as frequently as we do, and then being a threat to pass in short yardage situations. Or the last game where we were on the goalline, ran a counter on 2nd down as our faux "changeup", get CU thinking sneak or dive and watching them commit up the middle the next play while Green makes the easy playaction(?) throw.

 

3) With Taylor's big plays and cold streaks, sustained drives were not going to be the theme this year. Different story with Green though, but of course he is less effective in general.

[mmmtodd]

something im wondering...

 

if watson has put these players in a position to win, like texas i keep seeing thrown about, and when they dont execute, its not his fault...then...

 

games like colorado, when the players execute, did they put him in a position to win? or does he get the credit?

 

im seriously perplexed by this. to me, it seems you cant have one without the other, but its watson getting the free pass by some when it doesnt work, and the players basically get nailed to the cross. his players.

[zoogs]

Really grasping for anything there IMO.

 

When players execute like they are supposed to, it's good on the players and on the coaches, unless the plays are well executed but poorly conceived. As far as not executing:

 

When players just have a bad day at the office, like Texas, it is hard to put most of that on the coaches. And I mean even Gilmore. The problems with Gilmore are far reaching and have little to do with an epicly bad day of drops.

 

When players are just bad, then, yes. Our WRs are a good example. And I suppose this year has been a moderately redeeming one for Barney's OL. Another area to maybe look out for is LB, but we have been hurt there this year. 2007, on defense, was a little more than some poor days at the office and was really pretty systemic.

 

You look at the guy Watson is responsible for developing: Taylor, and you see that he is growing as a QB. There will always be freshman mistakes, that's the nature of the game (and of Taylor's skillset). Everyone knew or should have known going in - Taylor was a raw talent, fast and explosive, prone to streaks of hot and cold. We were going to get some highlight reel huge plays, and some clunker 3-and-out cold spells. But he has come a long way since day 1, that's for sure.

 

I don't think anyone is seriously knocking the players here, mostly the position coaches. We haven't had elite talent on offense, but it hasn't been awful either. There is dead weight on the staff among the offensive position coaches, I think that should be clear. I also think it will be unreasonable to expect truly elite offenses without some truly special players, too. Taylor has time to grow into one, and we'll need a fuller complement of playmakers to surround him or whoever is taking the snaps. Some good pieces in this recruiting class.

[kchusker_chris]

There is dead weight on the staff among the offensive position coaches, I think that should be clear.

That's certainly clear. Why was Gilmore retained, when Ron Brown was also hired? That one never made sense to me. It's almost like Bo (or Tom) wanted Brown, but Watson said if he was staying Gilmore was staying. Other than maybe Bo feeling he needed Gilmore to help retain the commited recuits when he took the job, I can't see any justification for it other than Watson saying that's how it was going to be.

[mmmtodd]

i completely agree im grasping. however, im not grasping because i feel the need to have more ammunition against watson and staff, its that im simply trying to understand the logic of watson getting a pass when his players dont execute. one game is one thing. i hope we all agree its become a wee bit more of a trend than that.

 

i agree that its a position coach issue more than anything. will Watson make the changes? does Bo order them? the dynamics of it all are strange. i constantly have the feeling that Bo and Watson are not a good fit together. something doesnt jive. Bo can talk all day about how Watson and him get along, but come on...this is Bo speaking here... he's less than forthcoming.

 

i think this is going to be an interesting offseason. gearing up for the an entirely new schedule next year, new faces wont be as big of a change to the team as they would have been before this year. if staff changes are going to be made, my opinion is that there wont be a better time to pull the trigger. but what do i know.

[zoogs]

Position coaches is definitely a decision that is not Watson's to make. Same with who got hired there, I'm pretty sure. Watson was in no place to make any demands, he was basically allowed to stay when he could have been let go. I guess they kept Gilmore for recruiting continuity, or something? Not that he was doing a good job of it at all.

 

Brown was brought in for TEs, probably Tom's recommendation (Watson was also Tom's recommendation).

 

Watson definitely has little say over who his position coaches are though. In fact, it's been insinuated that he has wanted some off the staff, but Bo doesn't. I don't know what the story is. I get the feeling Bo is a bigger fan of Barney than most. Not sure about Gilmore.

[bshirt]

Well, SW was recommended by TO for a smooth transistion while Bo attacked a dreadfully horrid defense. I highly, highly doubt it was because TO thought he was any kind of guru.

 

So the defense is fixed and is in excellent shape. However, the offense now has problems in River City well into year two. I hope Bo doesn't keep SW like Callahan kept COZ. Yeah, Bo's defense is ten country miles better than Callahan's offense but in a relative sense it's still the same thing.

[3rd and long]

I'm a little confused by the perception here because I think we *have* been mixing it up. Not all the change-up plays work, but unless we're in conservative Bo-trying-to-win-with-D mode, it's not like we are handing off every down for a dive up the middle.

 

Few things to keep in mind.

 

1) You are pretty much calling for everything in the playbook. Yeah, throw in some vertical passing, throw in some misdirection runs, some playaction (at least you didn't include rollout passes, which Taylor is NOT good at). I can't comment specifically, but one thing to bear in mind is that we had to simplify and strip down the playbook a lot for a young, learning on the ropes QB as Taylor. We aren't as multiple as Wats would like it, I'm sure. But within the confines of what we are capable of doing, we do still mix it up.

 

2) We are predominantly power running IMO, but we also take our shots and we do change it up a bit. Unfortunately, whenever it doesn't work and sometimes even when it does, people say Watson is going away from what is working. A common line is that we are clearly running it down their throats, but then why do we ever throw the ball or try to run outside. :facepalm Examples of changing it up are running it up the gut as frequently as we do, and then being a threat to pass in short yardage situations. Or the last game where we were on the goalline, ran a counter on 2nd down as our faux "changeup", get CU thinking sneak or dive and watching them commit up the middle the next play while Green makes the easy playaction(?) throw.

 

3) With Taylor's big plays and cold streaks, sustained drives were not going to be the theme this year. Different story with Green though, but of course he is less effective in general.

 

Yes, I do think we have to use the playbook, but I'm not saying all the different plays, just show some different looks on a more regular basis. I think you'd have to agree the majority of the early part of the season was a very steady diet of zone read. That's fine when you have a QB who is constanstly a deep threat, which then (in my opinion) really opened up the receivers for the passing game. I'm certainly not taking anything away from Martinez here, but most of his passing yardage comes to wide open receivers, they are not spectatular throws. I like the diversity we finally showed against Colorado, we finally got away from the zone read and gameplanned something that fit Cody better.

 

I really do respect what your opinions are in regards to Watson, they are well thought out. I'm not a fan and think we can do better, but again, that's just an opinion. I do have a question though. I've seen mentioned several times that Bo instructs the offense to go ultra conservative and let the defense win games. Has he come out and said this or is it board speculation.

[husker_99]

Well, SW was recommended by TO for a smooth transistion while Bo attacked a dreadfully horrid defense. I highly, highly doubt it was because TO thought he was any kind of guru.

 

So the defense is fixed and is in excellent shape. However, the offense now has problems in River City well into year two. I hope Bo doesn't keep SW like Callahan kept COZ. Yeah, Bo's defense is ten country miles better than Callahan's offense but in a relative sense it's still the same thing.

 

I think TO thought that Watson called the plays last year of Callahan's year here. That doesn't seem to be the case. Even with Martinez Watson's playcalling is bland.

[Fuzzy]

Could it be that Watson is only here because he is the only OC who can really deal with Bo Pelini and work under his thumb?

[zoogs]

Well, SW was recommended by TO for a smooth transistion while Bo attacked a dreadfully horrid defense. I highly, highly doubt it was because TO thought he was any kind of guru.

 

So the defense is fixed and is in excellent shape. However, the offense now has problems in River City well into year two. I hope Bo doesn't keep SW like Callahan kept COZ. Yeah, Bo's defense is ten country miles better than Callahan's offense but in a relative sense it's still the same thing.

 

I think TO thought that Watson called the plays last year of Callahan's year here. That doesn't seem to be the case. Even with Martinez Watson's playcalling is bland.

 

Yeah, you should have seen the look on TO's face afterwards when an intern came into his office and said, "Hey Dr. Tom, I just read in an old news article that Bill Callahan was calling plays in 2007." Biggest OOPS / "oh crap" face you'll ever see, at least what my sources tell me.

[Hujan]

Lol at Shawn Watson not scoring a single offensive TD in his last four CCGs:

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/49437-a-scary-statistic-about-watson-and-cc-games/

 

There is no excuse for that. At all. Not injuries, not maturing athletes, not a lack of vocal leadership, not outside distractions, nothing. None. I don't care if you have to play with 10 men and one of them is a kid from the stands who won a contest at halftime and gets to play QB while his friends text in every fifth play. There is no legitimate excuse for failing to score a TD in 16 quarters of conference championship play. Not a single one.

 

And if you Watson lovers want to go year by year to explain how in each instance Watson was hampered by this factor or that factor that should let him off the hook, then the man is clearly cursed. We don't need an OC who, however good of a coach he might be, apparently has a dark cloud the size of Texas hanging over his head every where he goes.