I cannot be the only one thinking this...

[Hoosker]

BRION!!

[Enhance]

Here's my problem.

 

Up 20 points in the fourth quarter, we kept all of our starters in and ran a completely vanilla offense. Why in the hell did we not bring in our back ups at this point? Does Martinez really need to be in there to hand the ball off? Why can't Carnes do it? Some reps are better than no reps. If Martinez is going to stay in the game, I expect our offense go for points, not go into iso-run/toss sweep mode for three plays and a punt.

 

That was probably the most frustrating thing for me today. Up 20 points and with a suffocating defensive performance, I thought it was more than a good time to bring Carnes in and get those back up running backs some touches. We never once brought Carnes in. I just really, really don't understand the thought process there. How are we going to build depth if a lot of those younger guys aren't seeing any game time.

[Hunter94]

it's just Bo, no other way to explain it.......senseless.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I have come to the logical conclusion that AustinHuskr and Hunter94 are but one in the same person.

[The Dude]

Am I the only one absolutely in love with the direction the offense is going?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Am I the only one absolutely in love with the direction the offense is going?

 

Nope. I like it too. I like drives instead of the big play. We've had the big play sprinkled in there some times this year, but most of our scores have come off solid drives. Totally unlike the past couple of years.

We've become a speedy, and sometimes physical offense. We are multiple. We can be hard to defend when everyone is playing spot on.

[Mavric]

Here's my problem.

 

Up 20 points in the fourth quarter, we kept all of our starters in and ran a completely vanilla offense. Why in the hell did we not bring in our back ups at this point? Does Martinez really need to be in there to hand the ball off? Why can't Carnes do it? Some reps are better than no reps. If Martinez is going to stay in the game, I expect our offense go for points, not go into iso-run/toss sweep mode for three plays and a punt.

 

That was probably the most frustrating thing for me today. Up 20 points and with a suffocating defensive performance, I thought it was more than a good time to bring Carnes in and get those back up running backs some touches. We never once brought Carnes in. I just really, really don't understand the thought process there. How are we going to build depth if a lot of those younger guys aren't seeing any game time.

 

And getting into the game to hand it off a few times is somehow going to prepare Carnes for a pressure situation? How?

 

And you'd be a lot happier if Martizez threw a pick or Carnes came in and fumbled an exchange?

 

We've done that in every win this year except for Ohio St. And there's a lot to be said for not giving games away after you have a nice lead. Just ask Wisconsin, Texas A&M, etc.

[Enhance]

Am I the only one absolutely in love with the direction the offense is going?

The final scoring drive for Nebraska is one of the best drives I think I've seen all year, and is the kind of offense that I love to see. We mixed in a lot of strong running, play action pass plays and we really took it to Iowa. Granted, I'd like to see us do that before we wear down the opposing defense, but it was still an awesome drive.

[SnowBigRed]

Am I the only one absolutely in love with the direction the offense is going?

 

Nope. I like it too. I like drives instead of the big play. We've had the big play sprinkled in there some times this year, but most of our scores have come off solid drives. Totally unlike the past couple of years.

We've become a speedy, and sometimes physical offense. We are multiple. We can be hard to defend when everyone is playing spot on.

 

I do too. I just thought the O got a little too conservative after NU went up by 20. Another long, sustained drive to put us up 27-0 would have really been icing on the cake, but instead they went a little too vanilla.

 

I really don't care since we won, but in the future, it would be nice to be able to put teams away and really keep the pedal to the metal.

[chickenheart]

You mean you like the cutsie tutsie plays that blow up in our faces....I think today shows what the identity of the offense SHOULD be and that's run first ( mainly because I can't stand watching TM pass) but also because when they go the pass, the drive always seems to stall. When you're getting chunks of yards running, KEEP RUNNING! I feel your pain Iowa because that is exactly what Coker was doing and they abandoned the run. I see it every week. Had Taylor not gotten hurt I'm afraid the running game was heading the direction it did last week. Good game and come bowl time I hope Rex breaks the record again! GBR!!!

[Enhance]

Here's my problem.

 

Up 20 points in the fourth quarter, we kept all of our starters in and ran a completely vanilla offense. Why in the hell did we not bring in our back ups at this point? Does Martinez really need to be in there to hand the ball off? Why can't Carnes do it? Some reps are better than no reps. If Martinez is going to stay in the game, I expect our offense go for points, not go into iso-run/toss sweep mode for three plays and a punt.

 

That was probably the most frustrating thing for me today. Up 20 points and with a suffocating defensive performance, I thought it was more than a good time to bring Carnes in and get those back up running backs some touches. We never once brought Carnes in. I just really, really don't understand the thought process there. How are we going to build depth if a lot of those younger guys aren't seeing any game time.

 

And getting into the game to hand it off a few times is somehow going to prepare Carnes for a pressure situation? How?

 

And you'd be a lot happier if Martizez threw a pick or Carnes came in and fumbled an exchange?

 

We've done that in every win this year except for Ohio St. And there's a lot to be said for not giving games away after you have a nice lead. Just ask Wisconsin, Texas A&M, etc.

I don't see where I said it would prepare Carnes for a pressure situation, nor did I say I'd be happy with a turnover.

 

As I said, some reps are better than no reps in my opinion. I just don't see how keeping Martinez in there late, when our sole purpose was to run the ball, does much of anything. One way football teams get better is by building depth and experience, and you build that by getting in second and third stringers. We haven't had many opportunities to do that this year, but we had a good opportunity for awhile there. Up 20-0, I would bring Carnes in. If something went wrong, have the more experienced Martinez come in to finish the game out.

 

With the way our defense was playing, I think Carnes should have gotten a little more time.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Games are nice when the only complaint is that we didn't shut them out or win by 27 or more.

[GMoose]

Here's my problem.

 

Up 20 points in the fourth quarter, we kept all of our starters in and ran a completely vanilla offense. Why in the hell did we not bring in our back ups at this point? Does Martinez really need to be in there to hand the ball off? Why can't Carnes do it? Some reps are better than no reps. If Martinez is going to stay in the game, I expect our offense go for points, not go into iso-run/toss sweep mode for three plays and a punt.

 

That was probably the most frustrating thing for me today. Up 20 points and with a suffocating defensive performance, I thought it was more than a good time to bring Carnes in and get those back up running backs some touches. We never once brought Carnes in. I just really, really don't understand the thought process there. How are we going to build depth if a lot of those younger guys aren't seeing any game time.

 

And getting into the game to hand it off a few times is somehow going to prepare Carnes for a pressure situation? How?

 

And you'd be a lot happier if Martizez threw a pick or Carnes came in and fumbled an exchange?

 

We've done that in every win this year except for Ohio St. And there's a lot to be said for not giving games away after you have a nice lead. Just ask Wisconsin, Texas A&M, etc.

I don't see where I said it would prepare Carnes for a pressure situation, nor did I say I'd be happy with a turnover.

 

As I said, some reps are better than no reps in my opinion. I just don't see how keeping Martinez in there late, when our sole purpose was to run the ball, does much of anything. One way football teams get better is by building depth and experience, and you build that by getting in second and third stringers. We haven't had many opportunities to do that this year, but we had a good opportunity for awhile there. Up 20-0, I would bring Carnes in. If something went wrong, have the more experienced Martinez come in to finish the game out.

 

With the way our defense was playing, I think Carnes should have gotten a little more time.

Exactly. If you're going to go 3 and out 3 times in a row with 10 minutes left in the game, why not do it with Carnes? Get him some snaps. Same with Heard and Turner.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Here's my problem.

 

Up 20 points in the fourth quarter, we kept all of our starters in and ran a completely vanilla offense. Why in the hell did we not bring in our back ups at this point? Does Martinez really need to be in there to hand the ball off? Why can't Carnes do it? Some reps are better than no reps. If Martinez is going to stay in the game, I expect our offense go for points, not go into iso-run/toss sweep mode for three plays and a punt.

 

That was probably the most frustrating thing for me today. Up 20 points and with a suffocating defensive performance, I thought it was more than a good time to bring Carnes in and get those back up running backs some touches. We never once brought Carnes in. I just really, really don't understand the thought process there. How are we going to build depth if a lot of those younger guys aren't seeing any game time.

 

And getting into the game to hand it off a few times is somehow going to prepare Carnes for a pressure situation? How?

 

And you'd be a lot happier if Martizez threw a pick or Carnes came in and fumbled an exchange?

 

We've done that in every win this year except for Ohio St. And there's a lot to be said for not giving games away after you have a nice lead. Just ask Wisconsin, Texas A&M, etc.

I don't see where I said it would prepare Carnes for a pressure situation, nor did I say I'd be happy with a turnover.

 

As I said, some reps are better than no reps in my opinion. I just don't see how keeping Martinez in there late, when our sole purpose was to run the ball, does much of anything. One way football teams get better is by building depth and experience, and you build that by getting in second and third stringers. We haven't had many opportunities to do that this year, but we had a good opportunity for awhile there. Up 20-0, I would bring Carnes in. If something went wrong, have the more experienced Martinez come in to finish the game out.

 

With the way our defense was playing, I think Carnes should have gotten a little more time.

Exactly. If you're going to go 3 and out 3 times in a row with 10 minutes left in the game, why not do it with Carnes? Get him some snaps. Same with Heard and Turner.

 

I saw a #10 on the field during offense today. I wasn't seeing things.

[3rd and long]

Here's my problem.

 

Up 20 points in the fourth quarter, we kept all of our starters in and ran a completely vanilla offense. Why in the hell did we not bring in our back ups at this point? Does Martinez really need to be in there to hand the ball off? Why can't Carnes do it? Some reps are better than no reps. If Martinez is going to stay in the game, I expect our offense go for points, not go into iso-run/toss sweep mode for three plays and a punt.

 

That was probably the most frustrating thing for me today. Up 20 points and with a suffocating defensive performance, I thought it was more than a good time to bring Carnes in and get those back up running backs some touches. We never once brought Carnes in. I just really, really don't understand the thought process there. How are we going to build depth if a lot of those younger guys aren't seeing any game time.

 

And getting into the game to hand it off a few times is somehow going to prepare Carnes for a pressure situation? How?

 

And you'd be a lot happier if Martizez threw a pick or Carnes came in and fumbled an exchange?

 

We've done that in every win this year except for Ohio St. And there's a lot to be said for not giving games away after you have a nice lead. Just ask Wisconsin, Texas A&M, etc.

 

Because ANY game snaps are a whole lot different than practice. Big, big difference between Tuesday afternoon at practice and Saturday in front of 85,000. I don't care if he just handing off, at least he's managing the huddle and taking play calls from the sideline. It's just so different from practice, and at some time he may need to know what it feels like to be in there when it counts.

 

Plus the fact that if there is any truth to the transfer rumblings, any little game time he gets may make a difference in his decision. If I was him, I would have serious doubts about returning (and please understand, I'm not by any means inferring he's goint to do something, just how I would feel in his shoes). Anyone who's been a younger guy on the end of the bench on a team know the feeling of eagerly awaiting that "garbage time" call.