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

[knapplc]

Really hope this is the last time it will need mentioning that Taylor is not a roll-out passer, or an under-center quarterback (yet, anyways).

 

Bo wanted to put us in the shotgun a lot, anyway. I think you hit the nail on the head with the OL strengths not being in tune with the offense we are stubbornly sticking with running. Although, actually, having two pulling guards on a run play has been a staple lately that I've noticed, and it's often worked pretty well for us.

Unless the pulling guard is injured, as in the CCG. I know I go back and forth on the Pro/Anti Watson stuff, but injuries to Henry and Sirles were factors that have to be taken into consideration.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Are you saying Taylor is a pocket passer? Because frankly it seems that he is much of neither, give or take. I guess it all comes down to development. Its also hard to judge whether or not taylor can throw it rolling when he is never given the oppurtunity. Im not asking for him to deliver a ball on the sideline in a 3 foot window 20 yards down field. But give him a 7 yard drag pattern, high school qbs make that throw. Rolling him out isnt a tactic I am envisioning for Taylor to throw the ball, but one to put him out in space and potentially let his speed burn the outside. You put playmakers in space and they are going to make plays.

[kchusker_chris]

If you are only going to take our conference games, you cannot stack them up against other teams' point averages that include their non-conference games.

if we had any consistency it wouldn't really matter. The point is we have a handfull of high scoring games that COMPLETELY throw off the averages so I put zero stock in our offensive stats this year as an argument for why we should keep Watson. There are plenty of other good arguments I'll admit, but that's not one of them. Likewise the 2008 offensive season as an argument. LOOK at the defenses we played in 2008. PATHETIC! I'm tired of hearing about PPG or ranking when we can't back up those rankings against a team w/ a top 50 or above defense.

 

If we continue down this road against top defenses it's going to be a rough year for us.

 

2008 Conference play: #100 (L), #72 (L), #112 (W), #88 (W), #65 (L), #95 (W), #118 (W), #80 (W) - AVG: #91

2009 Conference play: #55 (W), #47 (L), #99 (L), #95 (W), #7 (L), #74 (W), #40 (W), #60 (W), #3 (L) - AVG: #53

2010 Conference play: #106 (W), #7 (L), #91 (W), #41 (W), #87 (W), #99 (W), #50 (L), #82 (W), #57 (L) - AVG: #69

Conference play next year: #22, #2, #75, #31, #93, #44, #108, #15 - AVG: #49

 

Based on past results, do you even need to watch the games next year to know which ones we'll lose? In 3 years I see us sitting at 2-5 against top-50 defenses. In those 2 wins (#40/#41) we scored 17 and 31 points (24 of those came in a single quarter on a 4 big plays). In the 5 losses we scored 10, 10, 12, 13, and 6 points. (based on this years end rankings) next year we will be playing 5 top 50 defenses.

 

With Watson, I see 5 losses up there based on defensive rankings alone. That #108 team skewing the average is Michigan and they might just be able to outscore us anyway because 40 won't be enough. 6 losses? Highly possible with Watson. Having this SAME conversation next year at 7-5? HIGHLY possible with Watson. Whether he is the problem or not - I DON'T CARE!. Change needs to happen, simple as that...anything less than a major change won't be enough.

[zoogs]

Are you saying Taylor is a pocket passer? Because frankly it seems that he is much of neither, give or take.

 

I'm basically saying he isn't much of a passer, period.

 

Some would say Taylor is at fault for not working harder. I think that could be true but is only a small part of the story, so I'm not really focusing on that either. Taylor just has a limited background as a passer and as a D1 level QB, in many ways. Most wanted him as an athlete, but we are really trying to start from scratch and get him to be a QB. It could be great, because he has some tremendous physical ability. But what progress was made this year, was stunted significantly by his injury.

 

The stuff about him not throwing rollouts isn't based on my eyes judging his play on the field, but more informed opinions saying as such when discussing his mechanics and where he is as a passer. I am just forwarding info along in that regard. We have actually run quite a few drags this year, and it's been hit or miss that I can remember. He really has had trouble leading receivers, and throwing wayyyy behind them has killed a lot of good opportunities to completely open guys. Again, this has been more of an issue that has come back since the injury.

 

I think the idea with the zone read is to get Taylor out in space - rather than a slow-developing lateral play, in the ZR, if the read (more of a gamble) pays off, then Taylor has open space to take off to.

 

kchusker, every major school plays some creampuffs. You can't take out our stat-padding games and then throw out a ranking number where our numbers are stacked up against other padded stats. All I am really saying there.

 

Whether he is the problem or not - I DON'T CARE!.

 

I would prefer to try to identify and call for addressing the problems

 

Knapp, I am not as aware of OL injuries as most; what are Henry/Sirles injuries?

[HuskerNMO]

If you are only going to take our conference games, you cannot stack them up against other teams' point averages that include their non-conference games.

if we had any consistency it wouldn't really matter. The point is we have a handfull of high scoring games that COMPLETELY throw off the averages so I put zero stock in our offensive stats this year as an argument for why we should keep Watson. There are plenty of other good arguments I'll admit, but that's not one of them. Likewise the 2008 offensive season as an argument. LOOK at the defenses we played in 2008. PATHETIC! I'm tired of hearing about PPG or ranking when we can't back up those rankings against a team w/ a top 50 or above defense.

 

If we continue down this road against top defenses it's going to be a rough year for us.

 

2008 Conference play: #100 (L), #72 (L), #112 (W), #88 (W), #65 (L), #95 (W), #118 (W), #80 (W) - AVG: #91

2009 Conference play: #55 (W), #47 (L), #99 (L), #95 (W), #7 (L), #74 (W), #40 (W), #60 (W), #3 (L) - AVG: #53

2010 Conference play: #106 (W), #7 (L), #91 (W), #41 (W), #87 (W), #99 (W), #50 (L), #82 (W), #57 (L) - AVG: #69

Conference play next year: #22, #2, #75, #31, #93, #44, #108, #15 - AVG: #49

 

Based on past results, do you even need to watch the games next year to know which ones we'll lose? In 3 years I see us sitting at 2-5 against top-50 defenses. In those 2 wins (#40/#41) we scored 17 and 31 points (24 of those came in a single quarter on a 4 big plays). In the 5 losses we scored 10, 10, 12, 13, and 6 points. (based on this years end rankings) next year we will be playing 5 top 50 defenses.

 

With Watson, I see 5 losses up there based on defensive rankings alone. That #108 team skewing the average is Michigan and they might just be able to outscore us anyway because 40 won't be enough. 6 losses? Highly possible with Watson. Having this SAME conversation next year at 7-5? HIGHLY possible with Watson. Whether he is the problem or not - I DON'T CARE!. Change needs to happen, simple as that...anything less than a major change won't be enough.

 

I have a long list of games in which Osborne's offense didn't perform over 3 decades above against top teams. As a head coach it took TO 8 tries to score more than 17 points against OU.

 

Even the offense widely regarded as one of the most explosive of all time, OU in 2008, a team that headed into the NCG had not scored less than 35 points in ANY game, and had put up 58, 62, 66, 65, 61 and 62 in the previous 6 games all in conference, 3 against top 20 teams and 1 against Bo's defense, only managed 14 points in the NCG.

 

Oregon's offense that was considered great last year only managed 17 in the Rose Bowl against Ohio State, and a mighty 8 points against Boise State in their opener.

 

The truth is, even the greatest offenses often will get stopped against good teams. Maybe we should be back and fire Tom Osborne in the 70's, OU should have fired their OC after that awful title game performance. And Oregon should have canned Chip Kelly after such poor offensive output in their big games.

 

While you're at it, go back and fire 2008 Bo Pelini for allowing 52 at home to MU and 62 on the road to OU. And fire him from LSU in 2007 for giving up 43 to Kentucky and 50 to Arkansas. Obviously he couldn't get it done.

[kchusker_chris]

If you are only going to take our conference games, you cannot stack them up against other teams' point averages that include their non-conference games.

if we had any consistency it wouldn't really matter. The point is we have a handfull of high scoring games that COMPLETELY throw off the averages so I put zero stock in our offensive stats this year as an argument for why we should keep Watson. There are plenty of other good arguments I'll admit, but that's not one of them. Likewise the 2008 offensive season as an argument. LOOK at the defenses we played in 2008. PATHETIC! I'm tired of hearing about PPG or ranking when we can't back up those rankings against a team w/ a top 50 or above defense.

 

If we continue down this road against top defenses it's going to be a rough year for us.

 

2008 Conference play: #100 (L), #72 (L), #112 (W), #88 (W), #65 (L), #95 (W), #118 (W), #80 (W) - AVG: #91

2009 Conference play: #55 (W), #47 (L), #99 (L), #95 (W), #7 (L), #74 (W), #40 (W), #60 (W), #3 (L) - AVG: #53

2010 Conference play: #106 (W), #7 (L), #91 (W), #41 (W), #87 (W), #99 (W), #50 (L), #82 (W), #57 (L) - AVG: #69

Conference play next year: #22, #2, #75, #31, #93, #44, #108, #15 - AVG: #49

 

Based on past results, do you even need to watch the games next year to know which ones we'll lose? In 3 years I see us sitting at 2-5 against top-50 defenses. In those 2 wins (#40/#41) we scored 17 and 31 points (24 of those came in a single quarter on a 4 big plays). In the 5 losses we scored 10, 10, 12, 13, and 6 points. (based on this years end rankings) next year we will be playing 5 top 50 defenses.

 

With Watson, I see 5 losses up there based on defensive rankings alone. That #108 team skewing the average is Michigan and they might just be able to outscore us anyway because 40 won't be enough. 6 losses? Highly possible with Watson. Having this SAME conversation next year at 7-5? HIGHLY possible with Watson. Whether he is the problem or not - I DON'T CARE!. Change needs to happen, simple as that...anything less than a major change won't be enough.

 

I have a long list of games in which Osborne's offense didn't perform over 3 decades above against top teams. As a head coach it took TO 8 tries to score more than 17 points against OU.

 

Even the offense widely regarded as one of the most explosive of all time, OU in 2008, a team that headed into the NCG had not scored less than 35 points in ANY game, and had put up 58, 62, 66, 65, 61 and 62 in the previous 6 games all in conference, 3 against top 20 teams and 1 against Bo's defense, only managed 14 points in the NCG.

 

Oregon's offense that was considered great last year only managed 17 in the Rose Bowl against Ohio State, and a mighty 8 points against Boise State in their opener.

 

The truth is, even the greatest offenses often will get stopped against good teams. Maybe we should be back and fire Tom Osborne in the 70's, OU should have fired their OC after that awful title game performance. And Oregon should have canned Chip Kelly after such poor offensive output in their big games.

 

While you're at it, go back and fire 2008 Bo Pelini for allowing 52 at home to MU and 62 on the road to OU. And fire him from LSU in 2007 for giving up 43 to Kentucky and 50 to Arkansas. Obviously he couldn't get it done.

If Bo was still consistently giving up 52 to MU and 62 to OU I'm sure we would be calling for his head. But we gave him a few years, just like we gave Watson a few years.

 

But I guess you're right, there's no "trend" to Watson and his inneptitude. It's just one off games (that seem to repeat themselves year after year) here and there that I'm referencing. Watson consistently does GREAT against top 50 defenses.

 

At this point there is essentially a singular argument in support of Watson - "We didn't fire McBride and he turned out OK". If that's the best you can do, then I guess to each their own. I think we can all agree that the game (and business behind it) is "slightly" different than it was decades ago. If you want to wait 15-20 years for another NC then that's cool, watson will in his mid-late 70's. I'm sure he'll be very "adaptable" by then.

[zoogs]

There's really one statistical trend this year that stands out above the rest. "Before Missouri" and "After Missouri."

 

What happened? Taylor and Zac both got hurt.

[kchusker_chris]

There's really one statistical trend this year that stands out above the rest. "Before Missouri" and "After Missouri."

 

What happened? Taylor and Zac both got hurt.

Before Missouri - Played 1 top 50 defense (lost)

After Missouri - Played 1 top 50 defense (lost)

[74Hunter]

Bo wanted to put us in the shotgun a lot, anyway. I think you hit the nail on the head with the OL strengths not being in tune with the offense we are stubbornly sticking with running. Although, actually, having two pulling guards on a run play has been a staple lately that I've noticed, and it's often worked pretty well for us.

These reasons alone should tell you that it is time for Watson to go. This is Bo's team, Bo knows what needs to be done, and he left it up to Watson to build the offense that is needed. He hasn't, and if his philosophies clash with what the head coach wants, it's time to look for someone who does what the HC wants.

 

I don't care about not scoring points against good defenses, youth, injuries, excuses, etc., this should be the telltale sign.

[kchusker_chris]

I don't care about not scoring points against good defenses, youth, injuries, excuses, etc., this should be the telltale sign.

Neither does Watson (or anyone else that still supports him w/ a passion reserved only for defending your mother)

[husker_99]

If you are only going to take our conference games, you cannot stack them up against other teams' point averages that include their non-conference games.

if we had any consistency it wouldn't really matter. The point is we have a handfull of high scoring games that COMPLETELY throw off the averages so I put zero stock in our offensive stats this year as an argument for why we should keep Watson. There are plenty of other good arguments I'll admit, but that's not one of them. Likewise the 2008 offensive season as an argument. LOOK at the defenses we played in 2008. PATHETIC! I'm tired of hearing about PPG or ranking when we can't back up those rankings against a team w/ a top 50 or above defense.

 

If we continue down this road against top defenses it's going to be a rough year for us.

 

2008 Conference play: #100 (L), #72 (L), #112 (W), #88 (W), #65 (L), #95 (W), #118 (W), #80 (W) - AVG: #91

2009 Conference play: #55 (W), #47 (L), #99 (L), #95 (W), #7 (L), #74 (W), #40 (W), #60 (W), #3 (L) - AVG: #53

2010 Conference play: #106 (W), #7 (L), #91 (W), #41 (W), #87 (W), #99 (W), #50 (L), #82 (W), #57 (L) - AVG: #69

Conference play next year: #22, #2, #75, #31, #93, #44, #108, #15 - AVG: #49

 

Based on past results, do you even need to watch the games next year to know which ones we'll lose? In 3 years I see us sitting at 2-5 against top-50 defenses. In those 2 wins (#40/#41) we scored 17 and 31 points (24 of those came in a single quarter on a 4 big plays). In the 5 losses we scored 10, 10, 12, 13, and 6 points. (based on this years end rankings) next year we will be playing 5 top 50 defenses.

 

With Watson, I see 5 losses up there based on defensive rankings alone. That #108 team skewing the average is Michigan and they might just be able to outscore us anyway because 40 won't be enough. 6 losses? Highly possible with Watson. Having this SAME conversation next year at 7-5? HIGHLY possible with Watson. Whether he is the problem or not - I DON'T CARE!. Change needs to happen, simple as that...anything less than a major change won't be enough.

 

I have a long list of games in which Osborne's offense didn't perform over 3 decades above against top teams. As a head coach it took TO 8 tries to score more than 17 points against OU.

 

Even the offense widely regarded as one of the most explosive of all time, OU in 2008, a team that headed into the NCG had not scored less than 35 points in ANY game, and had put up 58, 62, 66, 65, 61 and 62 in the previous 6 games all in conference, 3 against top 20 teams and 1 against Bo's defense, only managed 14 points in the NCG.

 

Oregon's offense that was considered great last year only managed 17 in the Rose Bowl against Ohio State, and a mighty 8 points against Boise State in their opener.

 

The truth is, even the greatest offenses often will get stopped against good teams. Maybe we should be back and fire Tom Osborne in the 70's, OU should have fired their OC after that awful title game performance. And Oregon should have canned Chip Kelly after such poor offensive output in their big games.

 

While you're at it, go back and fire 2008 Bo Pelini for allowing 52 at home to MU and 62 on the road to OU. And fire him from LSU in 2007 for giving up 43 to Kentucky and 50 to Arkansas. Obviously he couldn't get it done.

 

 

All your points are moot. OU was very good when Switzer was coaching and as soon as he left we started beating OU. 2008 OU was never regarded as the most explosive that was 2003 OU. Oregon's offense last year was good but nothing like this year. Never considered great last year. We aren't getting beat by good teams except OU we are losing to bad to mediocre teams. Watson has been inconsistent all year long not just a couple of games. OK so Pelini had some bad games but he fixed them. that's the point he fixed what was wrong unlike Watson.

[kchusker_chris]

which is why we finished ranked 10,8,7,7,9,3,2,3,10,4,6,10,11,17,15,14,3,1,1,6,2 in those years with McBride/TO. If we finished with rankings like that I think we'd give Watson a little more slack even though he wasn't winning the "big one". like _99 said...we're losing to a handful of little ones as well though.

[74Hunter]

which is why we finished ranked 10,8,7,7,9,3,2,3,10,4,6,10,11,17,15,14,3,1,1,6,21 in those years with McBride/TO. If we finished with rankings like that I think we'd give Watson a little more slack even though he wasn't winning the "big one". like _99 said...we're losing to a handful of little ones as well though.

fify

[HuskerNMO]

If you are only going to take our conference games, you cannot stack them up against other teams' point averages that include their non-conference games.

if we had any consistency it wouldn't really matter. The point is we have a handfull of high scoring games that COMPLETELY throw off the averages so I put zero stock in our offensive stats this year as an argument for why we should keep Watson. There are plenty of other good arguments I'll admit, but that's not one of them. Likewise the 2008 offensive season as an argument. LOOK at the defenses we played in 2008. PATHETIC! I'm tired of hearing about PPG or ranking when we can't back up those rankings against a team w/ a top 50 or above defense.

 

If we continue down this road against top defenses it's going to be a rough year for us.

 

2008 Conference play: #100 (L), #72 (L), #112 (W), #88 (W), #65 (L), #95 (W), #118 (W), #80 (W) - AVG: #91

2009 Conference play: #55 (W), #47 (L), #99 (L), #95 (W), #7 (L), #74 (W), #40 (W), #60 (W), #3 (L) - AVG: #53

2010 Conference play: #106 (W), #7 (L), #91 (W), #41 (W), #87 (W), #99 (W), #50 (L), #82 (W), #57 (L) - AVG: #69

Conference play next year: #22, #2, #75, #31, #93, #44, #108, #15 - AVG: #49

 

Based on past results, do you even need to watch the games next year to know which ones we'll lose? In 3 years I see us sitting at 2-5 against top-50 defenses. In those 2 wins (#40/#41) we scored 17 and 31 points (24 of those came in a single quarter on a 4 big plays). In the 5 losses we scored 10, 10, 12, 13, and 6 points. (based on this years end rankings) next year we will be playing 5 top 50 defenses.

 

With Watson, I see 5 losses up there based on defensive rankings alone. That #108 team skewing the average is Michigan and they might just be able to outscore us anyway because 40 won't be enough. 6 losses? Highly possible with Watson. Having this SAME conversation next year at 7-5? HIGHLY possible with Watson. Whether he is the problem or not - I DON'T CARE!. Change needs to happen, simple as that...anything less than a major change won't be enough.

 

I have a long list of games in which Osborne's offense didn't perform over 3 decades above against top teams. As a head coach it took TO 8 tries to score more than 17 points against OU.

 

Even the offense widely regarded as one of the most explosive of all time, OU in 2008, a team that headed into the NCG had not scored less than 35 points in ANY game, and had put up 58, 62, 66, 65, 61 and 62 in the previous 6 games all in conference, 3 against top 20 teams and 1 against Bo's defense, only managed 14 points in the NCG.

 

Oregon's offense that was considered great last year only managed 17 in the Rose Bowl against Ohio State, and a mighty 8 points against Boise State in their opener.

 

The truth is, even the greatest offenses often will get stopped against good teams. Maybe we should be back and fire Tom Osborne in the 70's, OU should have fired their OC after that awful title game performance. And Oregon should have canned Chip Kelly after such poor offensive output in their big games.

 

While you're at it, go back and fire 2008 Bo Pelini for allowing 52 at home to MU and 62 on the road to OU. And fire him from LSU in 2007 for giving up 43 to Kentucky and 50 to Arkansas. Obviously he couldn't get it done.

 

 

All your points are moot. OU was very good when Switzer was coaching and as soon as he left we started beating OU. 2008 OU was never regarded as the most explosive that was 2003 OU. Oregon's offense last year was good but nothing like this year. Never considered great last year. We aren't getting beat by good teams except OU we are losing to bad to mediocre teams. Watson has been inconsistent all year long not just a couple of games. OK so Pelini had some bad games but he fixed them. that's the point he fixed what was wrong unlike Watson.

 

The knock on Watson is that he can't score on good teams, then I point out that Osborne struggled to score on OU and it's irrelevant?

 

2008 OU wasn't the most explosive? It averaged 51 PPG compared to 43 for the 2003 offense, they went 6 straight weeks and scored no less than 58 points (during conference play), that offense holds the record for most TD's in a season with 96, most points scored in a season 716.

 

Here's an interesting stat

 

Oregon's 2009 Offense vs Nebraska's 2010 Offense

 

YPG- Oregon 412, Nebraska 414

PPG- Oregon 36, Nebraska 33

Rushing YPG- Oregon 232, Nebraska 260

 

So Oregon's 10-3 team that stuggled against good defenses is a good offensive team, but Nebraska's 10-3 team that put up almost identical offensive numbers needs to have our offensive coordinator shown the door.

 

Makes perfect sense to me!

 

 

[zoogs]

Bo wanted to put us in the shotgun a lot, anyway. I think you hit the nail on the head with the OL strengths not being in tune with the offense we are stubbornly sticking with running. Although, actually, having two pulling guards on a run play has been a staple lately that I've noticed, and it's often worked pretty well for us.

These reasons alone should tell you that it is time for Watson to go. This is Bo's team, Bo knows what needs to be done, and he left it up to Watson to build the offense that is needed. He hasn't, and if his philosophies clash with what the head coach wants, it's time to look for someone who does what the HC wants.

 

I don't care about not scoring points against good defenses, youth, injuries, excuses, etc., this should be the telltale sign.

 

Bo gave a direction and Watson has gotten on board with it. He will always be underappreciated for the work and effort - compared to the rest of the staff - he has put into transforming this offense under Bo's direction.

 

Without more autonomy than that, we are likely only to get average OCs in the future. Which is fine if either the HC is going to direct the offense very well (look at a defense minded HC like Belichick, and the success he has had with as much input as he has in New England's offense and that entire team) - or if you expect average offense ranked in the 30s or 40s.