Pre-Fall Camp Presser - August 3

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

But I thought this staff was lying through their teeth about fitting the offense around the players and never let Tommy run?

 

That's an impressive amount of hyperbole you've got going on there.

 

 

Hyperbole, sure, but I've seen dozens of times over the last 9 months where posters have criticized Langsdorf for not calling the offense to Tommy's strength. For being a pure, pro-style west coast kind of guy, getting within the ballpark of Tommy's rushing numbers from 2014 is to be commended, and is pretty definitive of a tailored offensive gameplan, I think.

 

So you're going to focus on one cherry-picked stat that gives the appearance of being "within the ballpark" - which is actually a 27% reduction - and ignore the part where there was the 26% increase in pass attempts per game and a 33% increase in interceptions?

 

I guess if that's how you have to try to make your point.....

 

 

How is it "cherry-picked" I believe it is the only stat in the entire thread.

 

Little late to the party on this.

 

But even if it was the only stat in the thread, it doesn't mean that the only stat that's applicable. Thus, cherry-picked.

[Landlord]

Seems like a semantics stretch when I didn't start with an argument and then put forth the number, I only responded to it.

[GBRFAN]

 

So, as usual, wins dictate evaluation. The narrative would have changed had we gone 9-3 with 3 close losses rather than 6-7 with 6 close losses. But wins are really [or should be] ancillary to any discussion about adapting their system. Coaching staff A could have set a 70/30 pass/run split with Team A and then a 50/50 pass/run split with Team B because they determined that Team A was a better passing team and Team B was a better running team. That's adapting their system, regardless whether they won 10 games with Team A and 6 games with Team B. That's the point LoMS was making.

Well ... I mean ... yeah. You can ask Herm Edwards about that. How can the narrative NOT change based on wins? Do you often hear people talk about how terrible a coaching job the guy who just won the national championship did?

 

Coaches can only do so much. But having a bunch of close games should be where coaching makes the most difference, shouldn't it? If we repeatedly lost games in large part due throwing the ball too much, how is that not a valid criticism of the coaches?

 

And it's kind of glazing over the point to say we were 50/50 on the year (which we weren't). We lost all five games that we threw it more than 40 times. We were 4-1 in games we threw it 30 or fewer times. We may have been close to balanced for the year but decidedly not from one game to the next.

 

The point that you're making, and the contention among some fans is that Riley and Langsdorf, though they adapted their system, didn't do the best job of putting players in a position to succeed. Which, I agree with, but the more I think about it, the more I think that it's hard to base that on anything but the QB. Yeah, the staff could've done a better job evaluating Tommy's strengths and calling a game based on those strengths. But again, I wonder how much they limited Tommy's running because of the lack of depth behind him.

Running the ball more and not having TA run more are not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Everybody knows that running has less chance for error than passing - so if running is working teams are going to do it more often then not. Passing has to be used when the run is not working or a team is behind - it is also a nice way to keep a defense honest. Looking at a stat line after a loss and seeing more passes then usual doesn't mean that is what caused the loss. Possible we were behind early and or saw the run game being stuffed.

[84HuskerLaw]

Very interesting back and forth on this topic. The great thing about football and why I enjoy watching the Huskers so much is the strategy of the game. No other game or sport compares really. Each and every play has a great number of variables and factors to consider in deciding what play to call and so on. Personnel groupings, down and distance, physical comparisons of the teams, etc etc etc. Calling the 'right' play as Osborne has described it is really more 'art than science'. Some guys have a knack for it and others not so much.

 

At seemingly key points during games we lost last year, there were howls and criticisms aplenty that the play calling was poor. Typically it was when a pass was called when a run seemed the logical choice based on the relative success of the run game in the preceding series, etc. The play call was criticized of course, for the most part, because the play didn't work! Some were critical about calling a pass when a run seemed appropriate EVEN if the pass play was successful. I found myself agreeing with most of the critics in perhaps a dozen situations throughout the season. That's a pretty small number compared to the large number of plays called so I guess I have to conclude that overall the play calling was pretty good (grade it a "B-") although I would also have liked to see Tommy carry the ball about 35 or 40 more carries, especially in those circumstances where we desperately needed to sustain a drive or keep the clock moving with one more first down. I also agree that there was, looking back in hindsight, clearly a good reason to limit Tommy's risk of injury in the run game as his back up was not good enough. I think nearly all would agree that going into this fall, if we did not have Tommy Armstrong, the prospects for a winning season with Fyfe as 'the QB' would not be good. We would not be planning to red shirt POB certainly.

 

I think the run game improved considerably during the course of the season as the line play improved and the RBs all gained confidence and the plays used 'fit' our abilities better. In fairness too, the strong pass tendency suggested to our opponents that we would throw a lot more and that alone will aid the run game some as teams will play a more pass focused defense too. Passing can open up the run game and vice versa. Ultimately, football success is primarily a function of the success of controlling the line of scrimmage (those big guys up front are huge factors in deciding who will win no matter how clever the play calling is or is not).

[Mavric]

 

 

So, as usual, wins dictate evaluation. The narrative would have changed had we gone 9-3 with 3 close losses rather than 6-7 with 6 close losses. But wins are really [or should be] ancillary to any discussion about adapting their system. Coaching staff A could have set a 70/30 pass/run split with Team A and then a 50/50 pass/run split with Team B because they determined that Team A was a better passing team and Team B was a better running team. That's adapting their system, regardless whether they won 10 games with Team A and 6 games with Team B. That's the point LoMS was making.

Well ... I mean ... yeah. You can ask Herm Edwards about that. How can the narrative NOT change based on wins? Do you often hear people talk about how terrible a coaching job the guy who just won the national championship did?

 

Coaches can only do so much. But having a bunch of close games should be where coaching makes the most difference, shouldn't it? If we repeatedly lost games in large part due throwing the ball too much, how is that not a valid criticism of the coaches?

 

And it's kind of glazing over the point to say we were 50/50 on the year (which we weren't). We lost all five games that we threw it more than 40 times. We were 4-1 in games we threw it 30 or fewer times. We may have been close to balanced for the year but decidedly not from one game to the next.

 

The point that you're making, and the contention among some fans is that Riley and Langsdorf, though they adapted their system, didn't do the best job of putting players in a position to succeed. Which, I agree with, but the more I think about it, the more I think that it's hard to base that on anything but the QB. Yeah, the staff could've done a better job evaluating Tommy's strengths and calling a game based on those strengths. But again, I wonder how much they limited Tommy's running because of the lack of depth behind him.

Running the ball more and not having TA run more are not mutually exclusive.

 

Everybody knows that running has less chance for error than passing - so if running is working teams are going to do it more often then not. Passing has to be used when the run is not working or a team is behind - it is also a nice way to keep a defense honest. Looking at a stat line after a loss and seeing more passes then usual doesn't mean that is what caused the loss. Possible we were behind early and or saw the run game being stuffed.

 

So you haven't been reading the thread. Noted.

[GBRFAN]

or your word is not always truth. Obviously.