Some of last nights coaching decisions were baffling

[HuskerNation1]

 

Did any of you catch Sipple's editorial out this morning.

 

http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/sipple/steven-m-sipple-another-wild-ride-leaves-huskers-woozy/article_9669d092-456a-5bb1-a2d7-d45d1581f512.html

 

He made some good points that everybody would agree with, but this one baffled me...."Its hard to blame Nebraska offensive coordinator Tim Beck."

 

What the heck? I don't understand why Sipple feels the need to suck up to this coaching staff and not call it like it is. While I agree that Armstrong and the O-line didn't play well, TA didn't get really razzled until the 2nd quarter, and up until that point in time, the playcalling was horrendously predictable. It was obvious that MSU was keying on Abdullah, so why not mix up the rushing attack by using the Jet Sweep, or putting Cross in with Abdullah to create confusion. Instead, time and again, we see Ameer back there alone with Armstrong with absolutely no variation. This team desperately needed some early creativity to gain confidence that they could build upon through the rest of the game, and unfortunately it wasn't until late in the 3rd quarter and 4th quarter when the playbook opened up and we had MSU guessing what we were going to do. So while some of the players underperformed, I completely disagree with Sipple's refusal to put any accountability on Beck.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Do you know how many posts there have been just this year sreaming, "quit getting cute and just POUND THE ROCK"?

 

While I agree with you that we needed to adjust and try something, anything different, I just have to laugh. No matter how Beck calls a game, someone doesn't like it.

 

Sorry, screwed up the quoting function.

 

Against a team like IL with a weak Rush defense, it's a no brainer to keep pounding the ball. But each offensive game plan needs to be geared to the opponent, and against a top-tier opponent, I would expect our coaching staff to have an arsenal of plays to try if the bread and butter play (handoff to Ameer) is not working. I don't think fans are asking too much for Beck to gear his gameplan and playcalling to the opponent we are facing.

[HotGrillonGrillAction]

God dang man, I don't know what Beck could have done. What offense in the history of the sport moves without an offensive line?

 

Look at the photo attached to that article. Tommy and Abdullah got their asses kicked all night long. The fact that we were in this game is a credit to some guys that kept fighting, and a credit to the defense all around.

 

Tommy should have made some throws that we're gimmes, but he didn't. That was atleast a credit to Beck for trying those simple passes. Tommy missed them. I put that on him a bit, but in that stadium facing that pass rush, as young as Tommy is, I bet that was a bit intimidating. He knew he had to make quick decisions and he was rushed all night. NFL QB's fall apart in that kind of pressure.

 

If the offensive line doesn't feel ashamed after that performance then I'll feel it for them. That was disgraceful. Missed assignments, miscommunications, guys half efforting, guys standing around blocking nobody. Where's the hunger? Where's the attitude of wanting to put someone on their ass? I blame the offensive line and the offensive line coaches. This offensive line has been patchwork and spotty for the entirety of Pelini's tenure here. This zone blocking scheme, or whatever we are trying to do (I admittedly don't know a lot about it) it needs to go. I know that easier said than done because it changes the entire offense but for once I'd just like to see our linemen beat the piss out of the guy across from them. Nothing more. None of this complicated crap. Just win your battle.

 

This loss,is on the offensive line and their coaches. Period. The fact that I'm saying that about Nebraska, a place where the offensive line used to be the pride of this program, well that's the sad part.

 

It's time for some coaches to reach out and get educated from some guys who know what the hell they're doing. If its a scheme issue, change it. If its a teaching issue, get help teaching it so the kids understand it. If its an effort issue, then pull that kids ass off the field

I'm finding it hard to think of any Husker game ever with worse O-Line play. I'm guessing they aren't feeling proud. I hope the issues they had are fixable, like effort vs an injury that was slowing down the tackles.

[darkhorse85]

Also if Tommy hadnt fumbled the incomplete pass MSU wouldn't have got that last 3 to give them 27.

 

You don't know that. What if he comes out and throws a pick 6 on the very next play? Now they double the points they did manage to get.

 

A lot of people like to say things such as "well if this had just happened" or "if this didn't happen" but the truth is there is no certainty in a statement like that. Example: a whistle is blown for a poorly interpreted "fair catch" signal. Many people think DPE could have busted one there. He also could have fumbled during the return and we're back to square one. The game happened the way it did and there's no telling what could have happened if we just "would have."

[BigRedBuster]

It really is amazing how bad they played. Cotton falling on his ass was a perfect example of how they played the entire game.

[WhatDoIKnow]

 

Yes. We gave Sparty the ball AND the wind to start the game. Why is this a big deal and a major blunder? It obviously affected decisions to not kick field goals at the 13:35 from 48, 5:45 from 53, and most definitely affect the fade route to kenny bell at the 3:48 mark the was a pick.

I was scratching my head seeing this right away too. We had to get points early in this game and we should have made Sparty go against the wind early.

 

 

Dunno. The coaches rightly (luckily) figured it would be a close game at the end. Would you rather have a 48 yard game winning or tying field goal with or againsts the wind?

 

ETA: Would you rather have MSU attempting a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind? Would you rather us attempt a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind?

[Guy Chamberlin]

If Huskerboard could have dictated the playcalling they wanted to see for the Michigan State game, it would have been nearly identical to what Beck actually called for three quarters.

 

Heavy diet of Abdullah running. Abdullah in the wildcat. Abdullah as deep receiver. Safe little bubble screens for Tommy. A few shots downfield to surehanded Westerkamp and uninjured Bell.

 

Stay with what works, impose our will, yada-yada-yada.

 

Turns out Michigan State is a lot better than Illinois.

 

And given all the hindsight I can muster, Michigan State is simply better than Nebraska.

[Chaddyboxer]

If Huskerboard could have dictated the playcalling they wanted to see for the Michigan State game, it would have been nearly identical to what Beck actually called for three quarters.

 

Heavy diet of Abdullah running. Abdullah in the wildcat. Abdullah as deep receiver. Safe little bubble screens for Tommy. A few shots downfield to surehanded Westerkamp and uninjured Bell.

 

Stay with what works, impose our will, yada-yada-yada.

 

Turns out Michigan State is a lot better than Illinois.

 

And given all the hindsight I can muster, Michigan State is simply better than Nebraska.

I definitely won't argue that they are the better team, but if NEB gets another shot at them....they better be ready.

I think Tim called a solid game.....the o-line and Tommy need to play better....esp. the o-line. I really hope Tommy is focusing on his short passing game....he didn't come through on some of those short throws...he's gotta make em. NEB can beat and hang with this MSU squad IMO. However, this game didn't give me much of a gauge on if NEB is actually a solid top 25 team and if MSU is overrated. I hope to believe that MSU and NEB are 2 of the best teams in the BIG10 along with Ohio St.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

Yes. We gave Sparty the ball AND the wind to start the game. Why is this a big deal and a major blunder? It obviously affected decisions to not kick field goals at the 13:35 from 48, 5:45 from 53, and most definitely affect the fade route to kenny bell at the 3:48 mark the was a pick.

I was scratching my head seeing this right away too. We had to get points early in this game and we should have made Sparty go against the wind early.

 

 

Dunno. The coaches rightly (luckily) figured it would be a close game at the end. Would you rather have a 48 yard game winning or tying field goal with or againsts the wind?

 

ETA: Would you rather have MSU attempting a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind? Would you rather us attempt a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind?

 

that's the over-obsession with planning ahead and all the thinking ahead this staff does that I'm sick of. Just play for now damnit. Jeebus. I've seen Bill Belichek defer choice in frickin overtime to take the wind.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

Yes. We gave Sparty the ball AND the wind to start the game. Why is this a big deal and a major blunder? It obviously affected decisions to not kick field goals at the 13:35 from 48, 5:45 from 53, and most definitely affect the fade route to kenny bell at the 3:48 mark the was a pick.

I was scratching my head seeing this right away too. We had to get points early in this game and we should have made Sparty go against the wind early.

 

 

Dunno. The coaches rightly (luckily) figured it would be a close game at the end. Would you rather have a 48 yard game winning or tying field goal with or againsts the wind?

 

ETA: Would you rather have MSU attempting a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind? Would you rather us attempt a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind?

 

that's the over-obsession with planning ahead and all the thinking ahead this staff does that I'm sick of. Just play for now damnit. Jeebus. I've seen Bill Belichek defer choice in frickin overtime to take the wind.

 

Soooo....the staff isn't supposed to think ahead.....OK.....got it.

[ZRod]

 

 

 

Yes. We gave Sparty the ball AND the wind to start the game. Why is this a big deal and a major blunder? It obviously affected decisions to not kick field goals at the 13:35 from 48, 5:45 from 53, and most definitely affect the fade route to kenny bell at the 3:48 mark the was a pick.

I was scratching my head seeing this right away too. We had to get points early in this game and we should have made Sparty go against the wind early.

 

 

Dunno. The coaches rightly (luckily) figured it would be a close game at the end. Would you rather have a 48 yard game winning or tying field goal with or againsts the wind?

 

ETA: Would you rather have MSU attempting a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind? Would you rather us attempt a 4th quarter comeback with or against the wind?

 

that's the over-obsession with planning ahead and all the thinking ahead this staff does that I'm sick of. Just play for now damnit. Jeebus. I've seen Bill Belichek defer choice in frickin overtime to take the wind.

 

Really? This game is close in the fourth quarter every year. You know that you physically match up with this team and that it's strength on strength, it's cold and rainy all night on a grass field, but you don't want the stiff wind at your back in the 4th. Really?

 

You know where this quote is going, you have to...

[suh_fan93]

If Huskerboard could have dictated the playcalling they wanted to see for the Michigan State game, it would have been nearly identical to what Beck actually called for three quarters.

 

Heavy diet of Abdullah running. Abdullah in the wildcat. Abdullah as deep receiver. Safe little bubble screens for Tommy. A few shots downfield to surehanded Westerkamp and uninjured Bell.

 

Stay with what works, impose our will, yada-yada-yada.

 

Turns out Michigan State is a lot better than Illinois.

 

And given all the hindsight I can muster, Michigan State is simply better than Nebraska.

 

This. The run wasn't there. Pretty simple really. That's why Armstrong threw it 43 times so it's no shocker that we lost based on what we asked our QB to do. Personally I hope there isn't a rematch. While it's 'neat' in theory for some if MSU comes to play and moreover doesn't lay an egg in the 2nd half like they did on Saturday we're going to lose again and in much less dramatic fashion.

[True2tRA]

If Huskerboard could have dictated the playcalling they wanted to see for the Michigan State game, it would have been nearly identical to what Beck actually called for three quarters.

 

Heavy diet of Abdullah running. Abdullah in the wildcat. Abdullah as deep receiver. Safe little bubble screens for Tommy. A few shots downfield to surehanded Westerkamp and uninjured Bell.

 

Stay with what works, impose our will, yada-yada-yada.

 

Turns out Michigan State is a lot better than Illinois.

 

And given all the hindsight I can muster, Michigan State is simply better than Nebraska.

 

+1.

 

Gotta give that MSU defense a lot of credit. After a performance like that, you can't argue, MSU is the better team. Though I would love to see Nebraska play their A game, versus MSU's A game. I think it's closer than it looked at times. Just my humble opinion on that.

[Mavric]

 

My only gripe is the onside. Kick it deep. Two first downs end the game either way. However getting a stop after kicking it deep potentially helps your field position immensely, especially with a sorry game clock. Secondly kicking it deep and getting a hold could have allowed the best offensive weapon from last night another crack at breaking one. That being DPE.

Bo kicked it deep two years ago in a similar situation, shocked he didn't do it again.

Totally agree. Only real questionable coaching decision I had in the game.

 

 

I was on the fence. The problem is the time left. If there was another 40-50 seconds, I'd definitely kick it deep.. If we were only down by three, I'd kick it deep. If we had at least one timeout, I'd kick it deep. But there was only 3:22 left and we were out of timeouts. That means, best case we could expect to get the ball back with about one minute to go and probably need 60-65 yards to get into the end zone. Not impossible but our offense wasn't exactly rolling and we we'd be in obvious passing situations and hadn't handled their pressure very well. And there's a chance that one first down could end it.

[California Husker]

 

 

I thought we could've tried a 48-yard FG as well, but the weather may have figured into that decision.

 

With the punt, there was the potential for a lot more than just 10 yards of field difference, though ultimately that's what we got. Also, I believe a missed FG means the ball turns over where the holder is, so in reality, it was 18 yards of field position with the potential for up to 20 more.

 

Tommy got hurt, in case you missed that. In case you also missed the end of the game, putting him back in was the right call.

 

Can't disagree with the onside call. Had to try. Michigan State could have taken an extra 40 seconds off the clock if Langford had stayed in bounds. Give them a longer field and they could have done it a lot more easily. We were right up against the clock anyway, and getting the ball back was worth the risk. Either way, the defense has to come up with a few stops or it's over. Also, we had 0 timeouts.

 

When you're down 27-3 and you score, you have to try to make it a 2-point game. We were on the cusp of being blown out. We were very, very lucky to have had enough time for a 3rd scoring opportunity after that first TD. A quick punt return that didn't require an offensive series, and Langford going out of bounds. You have to try to make it a 2-score game because if you don't, it really takes a miracle set of circumstances to have a chance.

 

Also, bear in mind that missing the first 2-point try isn't a big deal, because you have another shot at 2 points to make up for it later if you need to go the TD-TD-FG route. I don't know why anybody would resign themselves to that route in the first place when there's a chance for better. If you'll notice, we tried for 2, kicked a PAT, and tried for 2 again -- exactly the right calls each time.

This is so funny how you think getting three more chances to score is a "miracle set of circumstances" and yet you seem to think that the prospect of scoring three TDs and successfully converting three consecutive 2-point conversions is somehow feasable. Had Pelini done the smart thing and gone for the 1-point conversion on each of those TDs, they would have had the oportunity to hit a game tying feild goal and at least had a shot in O.T.

 

Wrong, with the time remaining going for 2 was the correct choice. Complaining about this is hindsight!

 

Uhhh, first It's only hindsight if my opinion was formed AFTER the game. But I'm glad you know so much about how and when I form my opinions. And no, it was not the right choice, as the events of the game proved out. Just because you can make a mathematical argument on how it MIGHT have worked doesn't make it the correct decision. The decision should be made based on the liklihood of the scenario playing out. It is just ridiculous to think that NU would score three TDs and successfully convert three consecutive two-point conversioins. The likelihood was greater (not great...just greater) that they would be able to play good defense, force three-and-outs, and get the ball back in order to score three times.

 

And just in case you want to argue with me about which scenario is more likely....Nebraska scored two TDs and had the ball in MSU territory a third time with time on the clock. However they missed 100% of their attempted two-point conversioins.

[California Husker]

Let's break this down, then. We got three more chances to score because:

 

- DPE punt return TD taking almost no time off the clock

- Langdom runs out of bounds, spotting us an extra 40 seconds

- missed FG spots us great field position.

 

It was pretty lucky that we had an opportunity to get that last drive in. You're right that any comeback would have been a miracle, so let's look at the possible outcomes.

 

Going for 2 and making it:

2 score game. Michigan State would've had more pressure to score again rather than clock it out, another factor not being considered.

 

Going for 2 and missing it:

You can still make it a FG-to-tie game if you get another 2-point conversion. We had this chance when that's how the game happened to shake out.

 

Having two opportunities to go for 2 to achieve the same result you desperately wished we had punted to from the outset, makes it acceptable risk, in my opinion.

 

By the way, had we punted on the chance to close the margin to 2 scores, and Michigan State managed a FG in the ensuing 12 minutes, it'd have been a 3-touchdown game anyway, and so much for the "TD, TD, FG to tie" master plan.

There are a lot of "ifs" in there but the fact is, the scenario of cutting it to a two score game only works if you make the tremendous leap-of-faith that NU would have been able to successfully convert THREE CONSECUTIVE two-point conversions. That just wasn't going to happen. When they scored the TD they had nearly a quarter of football left. A couple of three-and-outs and use of the time-outs and it was just a lot more likely to get the ball back, score two TDs and be set up for a field goal to tie the game.

 

Just to prove my point...let's look at what we are arguing here....

 

You say going for two to ATTEMPT to cut it to a two score game was the right choice because any other outcome would be a "miracle". Successfully scoring three consecutive two-point conversions in your mind seems more feasable. However, they were 100% unsuccessful in their two-point conversion attempts, but in actuality they scored two TDs and had the ball in field goal range with some time left on the clock (which did them no good because they threw away two near automatic points they would have gotten by kicking extra point, on missed two-point conversion attempts).

 

So you can list your little fantasy argument about how it COULD have worked out, but I'm dealing in reality and the reality is, they got what would have been a shot at victory had they not squandered it away going for two. And I don't know if it's you or someone else that keeps saying my opinion is hindsight, but my opinion has never changed...it is almost never the right choice to go for a two-point conversion...I was screaming it at the TV as they lined up for the first failed attempt (I don't think Bo heard me).