**** What Did We Learn ****

[NUpolo8]

I learned, (well reinforced) that I'm done with Jamal Turner seeing significant reps.

 

He had a quiet game but nothing really bad jumped out at me, either. Was he loafing on his blocks or routes?

 

He does that every game. I just don't think he's ever living up to the hype.

[Enhance]

Offensively, this unit's biggest enemy is itself. In the first half, Armstrong threw two very well thrown touchdown passes that were dropped. And then turnovers killed drives. I also noticed Beck's play-calling was better, but he still had some what's-he-doing moments. Case in point - second Husker drive of the game, he calls a reverse play that gains maybe half a yard and then goes five wide the following play. SDSU is a team you could dominate in the trenches but we got cute. We scored on the drive, so alls well that ends well, but I still didn't like those play calls.

I personally saw nothing wrong with Beck's play calling. It may not have been perfect, but have you EVER seen a perfectly called offense? I think your being WAY too nit-picky here. Had Bell NOT lost his footing, that drive would have went for positive yards, rather than no gain.

Trust me - I'm usually one that harps execution over play-calling, because if a play works, nobody ever complains. And you're right, had Bell not lost his footing, there's nothing to complain about.

 

I also fully acknowledged his play calling was better this game, so slow your roll a bit.

 

However, a large part of play calling is going with what's working and working to your strengths. First drive of the game - 24 yard rush by Abdullah, 13 yard rush by Abdullah, 28 yard pass to Abdullah, five yard Cross TD. Mostly running and good blocking downfield. After a drive like that, why do you then start the next drive with a trick play? IMHO we weren't in a position yet to put SDSU on their toes. We were beating them man-to-man, player-for-player.

 

You're right, it's little, but little things can crop up. I didn't like the play call. It's not a big deal, but I don't think it was the right time.

[HuskerNationNick]

Trust me - I'm usually one that harps execution over play-calling, because if a play works, nobody ever complains. And you're right, had Bell not lost his footing, there's nothing to complain about.

 

I also fully acknowledged his play calling was better this game, so slow your roll a bit.

 

However, a large part of play calling is going with what's working and working to your strengths. First drive of the game - 24 yard rush by Abdullah, 13 yard rush by Abdullah, 28 yard pass to Abdullah, five yard Cross TD. Mostly running and good blocking downfield. After a drive like that, why do you then start the next drive with a trick play? IMHO we weren't in a position yet to put SDSU on their toes. We were beating them man-to-man, player-for-player.

 

You're right, it's little, but little things can crop up. I didn't like the play call. It's not a big deal, but I don't think it was the right time.

Slow my roll, I was just saying I think your being too picky on, IMO, a game that couldn't have been called any better. Had that play had gone for 15+, you would have a different tone on that call. It didn't so its the wrong play to call.

[Enhance]

Trust me - I'm usually one that harps execution over play-calling, because if a play works, nobody ever complains. And you're right, had Bell not lost his footing, there's nothing to complain about.

 

I also fully acknowledged his play calling was better this game, so slow your roll a bit.

 

However, a large part of play calling is going with what's working and working to your strengths. First drive of the game - 24 yard rush by Abdullah, 13 yard rush by Abdullah, 28 yard pass to Abdullah, five yard Cross TD. Mostly running and good blocking downfield. After a drive like that, why do you then start the next drive with a trick play? IMHO we weren't in a position yet to put SDSU on their toes. We were beating them man-to-man, player-for-player.

 

You're right, it's little, but little things can crop up. I didn't like the play call. It's not a big deal, but I don't think it was the right time.

Slow my roll, I was just saying I think your being too picky on, IMO, a game that couldn't have been called any better. Had that play had gone for 15+, you would have a different tone on that call. It didn't so its the wrong play to call.

Why do you call a trick play after your base offense scored in four plays and made mince meat of SDSU's defense? That's all I"m saying. What's the thought process of trying to get cute when there's absolutely no reason to do it yet. Put SDSU's defense on it's toes? Again, why? Their last drive was perfect and it didn't involve anything out of the ordinary.

 

If the play had gone for 15 yards I'd still think it's a bad play call. Play calling is more than just executing a play. There's timing and scheming involved with it.

[Bowfin]

I'm thinking Bo would rather make another tape and turn it loose so he doesn't have to talk about quarterbacks the next two weeks...

[walksalone]

run the ball stop the run, win the game

 

[huskerinAZ]

I'm thinking Bo would rather make another tape and turn it loose so he doesn't have to talk about quarterbacks the next two weeks...

 

 

Now this is fricken funny and unfortunately SO true! LMAO

[Hayseed]

Trust me - I'm usually one that harps execution over play-calling, because if a play works, nobody ever complains. And you're right, had Bell not lost his footing, there's nothing to complain about.

 

I also fully acknowledged his play calling was better this game, so slow your roll a bit.

 

However, a large part of play calling is going with what's working and working to your strengths. First drive of the game - 24 yard rush by Abdullah, 13 yard rush by Abdullah, 28 yard pass to Abdullah, five yard Cross TD. Mostly running and good blocking downfield. After a drive like that, why do you then start the next drive with a trick play? IMHO we weren't in a position yet to put SDSU on their toes. We were beating them man-to-man, player-for-player.

 

You're right, it's little, but little things can crop up. I didn't like the play call. It's not a big deal, but I don't think it was the right time.

Slow my roll, I was just saying I think your being too picky on, IMO, a game that couldn't have been called any better. Had that play had gone for 15+, you would have a different tone on that call. It didn't so its the wrong play to call.

 

I don't think we'll know much about Beck's play calling until we play a better defense. It's hard to tell if it's the play called by the OC or the choice of the qb.

[VectorVictor]

Maybe Bo will put in a different scheme. We have two weeks until we play again and a few "easy" games prior to NW.

 

 

 

None of these games are "easy" with the defense we have. Any team with a competent offense (see: Minnesota, Illinois, Purdue) will give us fits and hang around longer than they have any business doing.

[AngryHusker88]

Trust me - I'm usually one that harps execution over play-calling, because if a play works, nobody ever complains. And you're right, had Bell not lost his footing, there's nothing to complain about.

 

I also fully acknowledged his play calling was better this game, so slow your roll a bit.

 

However, a large part of play calling is going with what's working and working to your strengths. First drive of the game - 24 yard rush by Abdullah, 13 yard rush by Abdullah, 28 yard pass to Abdullah, five yard Cross TD. Mostly running and good blocking downfield. After a drive like that, why do you then start the next drive with a trick play? IMHO we weren't in a position yet to put SDSU on their toes. We were beating them man-to-man, player-for-player.

 

You're right, it's little, but little things can crop up. I didn't like the play call. It's not a big deal, but I don't think it was the right time.

Slow my roll, I was just saying I think your being too picky on, IMO, a game that couldn't have been called any better. Had that play had gone for 15+, you would have a different tone on that call. It didn't so its the wrong play to call.

Why do you call a trick play after your base offense scored in four plays and made mince meat of SDSU's defense? That's all I"m saying. What's the thought process of trying to get cute when there's absolutely no reason to do it yet. Put SDSU's defense on it's toes? Again, why? Their last drive was perfect and it didn't involve anything out of the ordinary.

 

If the play had gone for 15 yards I'd still think it's a bad play call. Play calling is more than just executing a play. There's timing and scheming involved with it.

Enhance I agree with you. Too often Beck abandons what is working & gets cute. That'll work on South Dakota State. Against Michigan State, not so much. And its a repeating pattern with Tim Beck, this is not the first time he's outsmarted himself, abandoned what was working, tried to get cute, & the offense lost momentum as a result. My logic is if we're giving the ball to said player every snap, said player is picking up 5 yards every play, you keep giving the ball to said player until the defense proves they can stop said player. If Tim Beck found himself in that situation, he'd try to get fancy & end up costing the offense its momentum.

 

I'm not even saying there was anything wrong with Tim Beck's playcalling today. I'm saying that abandoning what is working & trying to get cute has been something Tim Beck has done since he's been the Offensive Coordinator, & I believe this is where Enhance89's concern is coming from

[zoogs]

A reverse isn't a trick play so much as it is a changeup.

 

Whatever we do, whether that's showing different looks, running an end-around, or throwing deep, it's to keep the defense honest.

[Enhance]

Enhance I agree with you. Too often Beck abandons what is working & gets cute. That'll work on South Dakota State. Against Michigan State, not so much. And its a repeating pattern with Tim Beck, this is not the first time he's outsmarted himself, abandoned what was working, tried to get cute, & the offense lost momentum as a result. My logic is if we're giving the ball to said player every snap, said player is picking up 5 yards every play, you keep giving the ball to said player until the defense proves they can stop said player. If Tim Beck found himself in that situation, he'd try to get fancy & end up costing the offense its momentum.

More or less, I agree. I'm not saying there's never room for a trick play or something to keep a defense honest, but when there's no need to do so at that point in the game, so why try it?

A reverse isn't a trick play so much as it is a changeup.

 

Whatever we do, whether that's showing different looks, running an end-around, or throwing deep, it's to keep the defense honest.

Which, again, I completely agree with and understand. I consider a reverse a full fledged trick play, even if it's pretty old school and not so flashy. My argument is more broad though - when your first offensive series is dominant and required nothing flashy, why get out of that mold at that point of the game in a situation you have control over?

[zoogs]

I guess the way I see it is: you never really have 'control' of the game because that control is based on staying ahead of the defense. If you allow yourself to get into a situation where you're predictable, where the defense knows exactly where you're going and how to defend it, you hurt yourself in the long run of the game.

 

You don't score manly points for telegraphing to the defense and running over them anyway. Well, you do, but football is won on real points. Something like this sets up all the future plays of the 'base offense' you run and gives them a better chance of succeeding.

[louisianared]

The main thing I got from this game was that I liked how our defense got hit in the mouth quite early and did adjust and played much better after the 1st quarter. Showed some adjustment and I did feel that Bo had a different feel about him as opposed to other games, seemed more loose and not as high strung.

[CheeseHusker]

I think the one thing I gained from this more than anything else - for Nebraska to be successful, it needs to be aggressive and attacking. On both sides of the ball.

 

I felt like when TA was in the game that Beck just went full throttle aggressive, and it worked. I loved the two-minute drill at the end of the half. That is the kind of thing I want to see. It wasn't "oh, we probably won't score, so I'll take a knee".... it was "why the hell can't we score again?" The defensive play also improved when they went after the QB and started swarming to the ball.

 

I won't get into the QB debate too much, but I found it interesting today that the whole offense seemed to play with much less fear and abandon than usual, especially with TA under center.

 

It's the conservative, passive, reactive, playing-not-to-lose mentality that's doomed this outfit all too often. I saw something else at work today.