Watson a candidate for the Miami(OH) head coach position

[suh_fan93]

 

(Watson fans) They just don't see it. They seriously just don't see it...

[Glendower]

I thought OU's defense was in the mid 60's, I could be wrong.

 

I guess I would say this, How many times has the defense held opposing teams under their average point and yardage totals since Bo has been here?

 

Then I would say, how many times has Watsons offense been held under its point and yardage average when they play what is considered to be an average defense. I would say even a top half defense, in the nation, so what is that, about 1-64?

 

My thinking is that Bo's defense has done much better in this area then has Watsons offense. Even in the championship games the last two years. What did UT and OU average per game, about 35 points? Bo held them way under those totals.

 

You can say the same thing about most offenses though, a good defense will usually stop a good offense.

 

The thing that is crap about the CCG, is that if we play for the FG and a tie, people criticize the coaches for not going for the win. They call a play and try to make a first down to go down and win the game and they are idiots. It's literally a no win situation.

 

Quick question, what was the #1 scoring defense in the Big 12? Missouri with 15.2 PPG, we put 31 on them, and probably could have hung more if we wanted.

 

Yes, the SDSU and Texas games had a healhy Taylor Martinez and our offense struggled to put points on the board. But then again, we scored more points against OSU, MU, Washington and K-State than any other team.

 

All of those schools played some pretty potent offenses during the year, Washington played Stanford and Oregon ( #1 and # 8 in scoring, NU scored more than both), K-State played OSU and Baylor (#3 and #29 in scoring, NU scored more than both), OSU played A&M, Tex. Tech, OU, Troy, Tulsa, KSU (#37, #34, #17, #27, #10, #25 in scoring, NU topped them all), MU played Illinois, KSU, San Diego State, A&M and Texas Tech (#34, #25, #20, #37, #34, again, NU topped them ALL)

 

So NU scored more on those 4 teams than some VERY good offenses, and outscored teams like Missouri, Florida, Georgia Tech, West Virginia...all teams that many would consider "better" offenses than Nebraska and Watson, and he did it with a redshirt freshman that was gimpy throughout most the last third of the year.

 

Complain about going for the tie? Are you nuts? No one was complaining about that! People I was with were saying that we should kick on second down because of how crappfully everything had been going! I would have been happy if he hadn't pulled burkhead! I was yelling at the TV when he took him out and put Martinez back in! Nothing against martinez, but OU had his number, but the Wildcat was working and they were getting steady yards. I would have been happy if he had simply played to do things that were proven to work.

[teachercd]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

[HuskerNMO]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

[teachercd]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

 

 

I am basing it on top half defenes because I thought that was a fair starting point to use. Dont you?

 

I get what your saying about the plays "being there", I have coached for 10 years and with the exception of the QB sneak, spike and kneel, I have NEVER seen an offensive play that was drawn up that was not "there" or was not designed to score a TD. They all are, the thing is, you have to know what to call, when to call and how to play to your players strongest points.

 

That goes for defense too, you probably wont see Bo having a DE cover a WR.

[74Hunter]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

How very Callahan-esque. When the offense looks good (even if it's only against a bottom of the barrel defense) it's due to great coaches and the gameplans they designed.

 

When it doesn't work, it's because of the players: injuries, lack of depth, lack of experience, execution, etc. Even when history dictates that our offensive coordinator has been mediocre at best, and other OCs seem to have better success with the same personnel issues.

[teachercd]

God the worst thing about the BC lovers was when they stopped believing in "garbage time stats", so NU is down by 40 and they complete 10 passes in a row and rack up 200 more yards of offense and lose by 45, yeah, those were not garbage time stats.

 

Sorry to take this off topic, I just remember all the fights I had with BCers about this.

[UM-HUSKER]

Watson is a bi-polar OC, he will be calling a good game and then all of a sudden, bam retardiness

[HuskerNMO]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

 

 

I am basing it on top half defenes because I thought that was a fair starting point to use. Dont you?

 

I get what your saying about the plays "being there", I have coached for 10 years and with the exception of the QB sneak, spike and kneel, I have NEVER seen an offensive play that was drawn up that was not "there" or was not designed to score a TD. They all are, the thing is, you have to know what to call, when to call and how to play to your players strongest points.

 

That goes for defense too, you probably wont see Bo having a DE cover a WR.

 

Sure, it's a fair starting point. But you said what other teams do against the same teams we played don't matter, yet that's exactly what stats are. You're argument just doesn't make sense, you're basically saying that because you don't like the stats I used, which show that Watson's horrible offense had the best performance against some teams that had faced some very explosive offenses, they aren't valid. Yet somehow, magically, we can use stats against top 50 defenses to show that Watson sucks.

 

Point 2, i'm a bit confused, are you admitting that Watson may have called the correct plays that just weren't executed? Taylor probably had at least 5-6 touchdowns dropped this year, many in big games that cost us. Taylor also missed receivers that cost us points or made bad throws, that's execution, not the play calling.

 

 

Point 3, I've certainly seen Bo drop DE's into short zones where receivers are running

[HuskerNMO]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

How very Callahan-esque. When the offense looks good (even if it's only against a bottom of the barrel defense) it's due to great coaches and the gameplans they designed.

 

When it doesn't work, it's because of the players: injuries, lack of depth, lack of experience, execution, etc. Even when history dictates that our offensive coordinator has been mediocre at best, and other OCs seem to have better success with the same personnel issues.

 

Talk to almost any coach, winning and losing almost always comes down to who executes better. Yes, sometimes the game plan is just crap and you get hammered, but 90% plus of losses come back to not executing the play the way it was supposed to be ran. See dropped TD passes, blown coverages, QB's that don't throw the ball away resulting in a sack and fumbles.

 

Coaches can not go out of the field and execute for the players, we basically had the same offensive staff in the 80's when we could never win the big one as we did in the 90's when we won 3 titles. What was the difference? Talent and execution, you can't ignore the fact that up until the time that Martinez got hurt, we had a top 10 offense in the country with a freshman QB at the helm. You don't get there by pure luck, you get there by a good coaching staff and execution. When we had a gimpy QB, we lost the ability to execute our offense. The biggest mistake the coaching staff made this year, was not playing Cody Green in the A&M and OU games. Cody can't do what a healthy Martinez can do, but he is a better option than a gimpy Martinez. And the prodigal son is who made that call, not our maligned OC.

 

 

 

 

 

[teachercd]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

 

 

I am basing it on top half defenes because I thought that was a fair starting point to use. Dont you?

 

I get what your saying about the plays "being there", I have coached for 10 years and with the exception of the QB sneak, spike and kneel, I have NEVER seen an offensive play that was drawn up that was not "there" or was not designed to score a TD. They all are, the thing is, you have to know what to call, when to call and how to play to your players strongest points.

 

That goes for defense too, you probably wont see Bo having a DE cover a WR.

 

Sure, it's a fair starting point. But you said what other teams do against the same teams we played don't matter, yet that's exactly what stats are. You're argument just doesn't make sense, you're basically saying that because you don't like the stats I used, which show that Watson's horrible offense had the best performance against some teams that had faced some very explosive offenses, they aren't valid. Yet somehow, magically, we can use stats against top 50 defenses to show that Watson sucks.

 

Point 2, i'm a bit confused, are you admitting that Watson may have called the correct plays that just weren't executed? Taylor probably had at least 5-6 touchdowns dropped this year, many in big games that cost us. Taylor also missed receivers that cost us points or made bad throws, that's execution, not the play calling.

 

 

Point 3, I've certainly seen Bo drop DE's into short zones where receivers are running

 

 

Okay, I am not sure if perhaps I am not explaining myself right or if you are not understanding it, I do not mean for that to sound like I am a jerk.

 

Let me try again, to your first point: When you play a crappy defense the offense should, in theory, put up good stats. When they play a great defense they should, in theory, struggle, and when they play an average defense they should probably have some good games and some bad ones. Now, Watsons bad games, the ones that NU gets beat in, he averages WAY below what could be seen as effective. The stats show that. I said that I didnt care what OTHER teams do vs a team. Not the overall stats just I dont care what Stanford did vs UW.

 

Point 2, I am sure that Watson has called the "correct" play lots of times, like I said, with the exception of 3 plays that I know of, all plays are designed to score a TD, so yeah, he has called the "correct" play lots of times, the problem is that he calls the correct play without taking into consideration what the defense will do and how they will defend it, remember, the defense is trying to. That is the adjustment phase of the game. The part that Watson is just terrible at.

 

Point 3, well you made my point, you have seen the DE's drop into ZONE COVERAGE, they are not covering a WR, they are covering space. HUGE HUGE HUGE difference. Bo is not putting a DE out wide to cover a WR man-man. Sounds stupid right? Well, thats how Watsons offense is.

 

You have a QB that is not a great passer so you make him pass with a lot, you give him tough routes to throw/complete. It makes little or no sense.

 

Again, I am not a total Watson hater, I just think he is at best, average. That is not a bad thing but I think there are better guys out there for the job.

 

I see other teams that have hurt guys (the ducks this year) and dont miss a beat, or that have new QB's, Cam Newton, and dont miss a beat. Why is it that its always a fair excuse for Watson?

 

Bo lost TWO starting linebackers and turned the 3rd one into an ALL FREAKING AMERICAN. The offense gets a guy dinged up and it looks like the special olympics out there! Bo yanks guys on defense when they screw up, ALL THE TIME, yet, Watson continues to use the same players over and over even when they are not doing a good job.

[teachercd]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

How very Callahan-esque. When the offense looks good (even if it's only against a bottom of the barrel defense) it's due to great coaches and the gameplans they designed.

 

When it doesn't work, it's because of the players: injuries, lack of depth, lack of experience, execution, etc. Even when history dictates that our offensive coordinator has been mediocre at best, and other OCs seem to have better success with the same personnel issues.

 

Talk to almost any coach, winning and losing almost always comes down to who executes better. Yes, sometimes the game plan is just crap and you get hammered, but 90% plus of losses come back to not executing the play the way it was supposed to be ran. See dropped TD passes, blown coverages, QB's that don't throw the ball away resulting in a sack and fumbles.

 

Coaches can not go out of the field and execute for the players, we basically had the same offensive staff in the 80's when we could never win the big one as we did in the 90's when we won 3 titles. What was the difference? Talent and execution, you can't ignore the fact that up until the time that Martinez got hurt, we had a top 10 offense in the country with a freshman QB at the helm. You don't get there by pure luck, you get there by a good coaching staff and execution. When we had a gimpy QB, we lost the ability to execute our offense. The biggest mistake the coaching staff made this year, was not playing Cody Green in the A&M and OU games. Cody can't do what a healthy Martinez can do, but he is a better option than a gimpy Martinez. And the prodigal son is who made that call, not our maligned OC.

 

 

Well you are guessing on the part about Cody doing a better job and you might be right but you could be wrong too. Cody, even when 100% healthy has never really shown anything that makes him better then average. Even that CU game, didnt he pass for like 100 yards? Its not like he was 20-22 for 300 yards and 3 TD's.

 

The first part, Like I said, I have coached (and still do) for 10 years, when coaches say its all about excuting, its pretty much coach talk for "we sucked". The reason that plays are not run correctly, most of the time, is because the defense adjusted to it. That is why a good OC adjusts again and finds a new way to attack. See, the players are doing what they have been coached to do, its up to the coaches to prepare them, FOR EVERYTHING.

[HuskerNMO]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

How very Callahan-esque. When the offense looks good (even if it's only against a bottom of the barrel defense) it's due to great coaches and the gameplans they designed.

 

When it doesn't work, it's because of the players: injuries, lack of depth, lack of experience, execution, etc. Even when history dictates that our offensive coordinator has been mediocre at best, and other OCs seem to have better success with the same personnel issues.

 

Talk to almost any coach, winning and losing almost always comes down to who executes better. Yes, sometimes the game plan is just crap and you get hammered, but 90% plus of losses come back to not executing the play the way it was supposed to be ran. See dropped TD passes, blown coverages, QB's that don't throw the ball away resulting in a sack and fumbles.

 

Coaches can not go out of the field and execute for the players, we basically had the same offensive staff in the 80's when we could never win the big one as we did in the 90's when we won 3 titles. What was the difference? Talent and execution, you can't ignore the fact that up until the time that Martinez got hurt, we had a top 10 offense in the country with a freshman QB at the helm. You don't get there by pure luck, you get there by a good coaching staff and execution. When we had a gimpy QB, we lost the ability to execute our offense. The biggest mistake the coaching staff made this year, was not playing Cody Green in the A&M and OU games. Cody can't do what a healthy Martinez can do, but he is a better option than a gimpy Martinez. And the prodigal son is who made that call, not our maligned OC.

 

 

Well you are guessing on the part about Cody doing a better job and you might be right but you could be wrong too. Cody, even when 100% healthy has never really shown anything that makes him better then average. Even that CU game, didnt he pass for like 100 yards? Its not like he was 20-22 for 300 yards and 3 TD's.

 

The first part, Like I said, I have coached (and still do) for 10 years, when coaches say its all about excuting, its pretty much coach talk for "we sucked". The reason that plays are not run correctly, most of the time, is because the defense adjusted to it. That is why a good OC adjusts again and finds a new way to attack. See, the players are doing what they have been coached to do, its up to the coaches to prepare them, FOR EVERYTHING.

 

 

Actually, here's the stats that support the theory

 

Taylor after the injury

 

42 Carries, 56 Yards ,1.33 YPC, 0 TD, 4 Fumbles

 

37 Completions, 67 Attempts, 417 Yards, 0 TD, 3 INT, 55.2% Comp %, 78.5 Passer Rating

 

Martinez, 3 starts, 1-2 offense and averages 15.3 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 25.6 PPG went -10 ppg down the stretch

 

Green, 2 starts, 2-0 and offense averages 38 PPG against defenses that allowed an average of 29.8 PPG, so Cody led offenses went +8 PPG down the stretch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[BornRedCornFed]

i leave for a week and you guys are still talking about watson.

 

have we not learned anything from the rumor filled year that was 2010?

[HuskerNMO]

I appreciate the stats you laid out but I dont care about what other teams did or didnt do against the same team. I care about what NU did vs those teams. Watson has shown, time and time again that vs top half defenses, he basically poops his pants.

 

This year we saw it again

 

UT

AM

OU

 

 

How many TOTAL points did he offense score in those 3 games? Was it 6, 6, 20? So, yeah, 32 points, so less then 11 points per game. The defense in those games let up, 20, 9, 23 (I think), so 52 points or about 17.5 points per game. Now, you can say what you want but I think that a good team should be able to let up 17-20 points per game and still win.

 

If you don't care about stats that other teams put up, why are you basing your aguments on "top half defenses"? Those are mostly built on stats against other teams.

 

2 of the 3 we played a majority of the game with a gimpy quarterback that was forced into doing things that he doesn't do well at. In the Texas game the scheme and playcalling certainly wasn't the issue, it was the execution. I would also argue the same in the A&M game, Watson's play had Reed in position for a TD, but an awful throw by Martinez ended up as an interception. Even in the OU game, it was poor decision making by Taylor that cost us the game. I put the A&M and OU losses on the coach that wanted Martinez in the game, and that wasn't our OC.

 

 

I am basing it on top half defenes because I thought that was a fair starting point to use. Dont you?

 

I get what your saying about the plays "being there", I have coached for 10 years and with the exception of the QB sneak, spike and kneel, I have NEVER seen an offensive play that was drawn up that was not "there" or was not designed to score a TD. They all are, the thing is, you have to know what to call, when to call and how to play to your players strongest points.

 

That goes for defense too, you probably wont see Bo having a DE cover a WR.

 

Sure, it's a fair starting point. But you said what other teams do against the same teams we played don't matter, yet that's exactly what stats are. You're argument just doesn't make sense, you're basically saying that because you don't like the stats I used, which show that Watson's horrible offense had the best performance against some teams that had faced some very explosive offenses, they aren't valid. Yet somehow, magically, we can use stats against top 50 defenses to show that Watson sucks.

 

Point 2, i'm a bit confused, are you admitting that Watson may have called the correct plays that just weren't executed? Taylor probably had at least 5-6 touchdowns dropped this year, many in big games that cost us. Taylor also missed receivers that cost us points or made bad throws, that's execution, not the play calling.

 

 

Point 3, I've certainly seen Bo drop DE's into short zones where receivers are running

 

 

Okay, I am not sure if perhaps I am not explaining myself right or if you are not understanding it, I do not mean for that to sound like I am a jerk.

 

Let me try again, to your first point: When you play a crappy defense the offense should, in theory, put up good stats. When they play a great defense they should, in theory, struggle, and when they play an average defense they should probably have some good games and some bad ones. Now, Watsons bad games, the ones that NU gets beat in, he averages WAY below what could be seen as effective. The stats show that. I said that I didnt care what OTHER teams do vs a team. Not the overall stats just I dont care what Stanford did vs UW.

 

Point 2, I am sure that Watson has called the "correct" play lots of times, like I said, with the exception of 3 plays that I know of, all plays are designed to score a TD, so yeah, he has called the "correct" play lots of times, the problem is that he calls the correct play without taking into consideration what the defense will do and how they will defend it, remember, the defense is trying to. That is the adjustment phase of the game. The part that Watson is just terrible at.

 

Point 3, well you made my point, you have seen the DE's drop into ZONE COVERAGE, they are not covering a WR, they are covering space. HUGE HUGE HUGE difference. Bo is not putting a DE out wide to cover a WR man-man. Sounds stupid right? Well, thats how Watsons offense is.

 

You have a QB that is not a great passer so you make him pass with a lot, you give him tough routes to throw/complete. It makes little or no sense.

 

Again, I am not a total Watson hater, I just think he is at best, average. That is not a bad thing but I think there are better guys out there for the job.

 

I see other teams that have hurt guys (the ducks this year) and dont miss a beat, or that have new QB's, Cam Newton, and dont miss a beat. Why is it that its always a fair excuse for Watson?

 

Bo lost TWO starting linebackers and turned the 3rd one into an ALL FREAKING AMERICAN. The offense gets a guy dinged up and it looks like the special olympics out there! Bo yanks guys on defense when they screw up, ALL THE TIME, yet, Watson continues to use the same players over and over even when they are not doing a good job.

 

But you measure defenses on how they performed overall against other teams. If you don't care about what other teams did against other teams, I don't see how you can use statistics for anything, since that's exactly what they are.

 

Many of Watson's adjustments or subs have been overruled by Bo.

 

And in the same respect as the LB comment, Watson took a kid that almost NOBODY thought could play QB at this level, and prior to the injury he was being hailed as a fringe Heisman candidate, he's got a fantastic QB effeciency rating despite being called an awful passer. We have a 3* running back named Roy Helu who had only 4 offers coming out of high school (BYU, pre Chip Kelly Oregon and Cal) who has had over 1000 yards from the LOS under Watson for 3 straight years, including 2 1,000 yard years. In fact, if Burkhead gets 88 yards, and Martinez 58 yards we'll have 3 players with 1,000 rushing yards.

 

Our horrible offense put up stats that are almost identical to the 2009 Oregon Ducks, and look at where they are now. Do I think Watson is the best OC in the country? Absolutely not. Do I think Nebraska would pay what it takes to get a Dana Holgorsen, Guz Malzahn or similar level OC? Absolutely not. If I had my wish right now, Nebraska would offer Mark Helfrich around $400K to come be our OC after Watson gets a HC gig, unfortunately, I don't think it's going to happen though.