Where Offensive Play-Calling and Coaches Adapting Are Discussed

[Landlord]

Nobody explicitly stated that, but you sure inferred it.

 

So if we only lose 2-3 it might be a mix of factors, but if we lose 7 then those 2-3 retroactively get changed to be blamed on the staff?

[cm husker]

Nobody explicitly stated that, but you sure inferred it.

 

So if we only lose 2-3 it might be a mix of factors, but if we lose 7 then those 2-3 retroactively get changed to be blamed on the staff?

Actually you inferred it from something i didn't even imply.

 

You're not going to agree, but I'll try one more time: it's similar to probabilities. You look at the list of games and say "odds are we should win 5 of 12 based on talent match ups. Of the remaining 7, 5 or 6 are "push games" that could go either either way. And the last 1 or 2 games are ones we probably lose, barring playing above our own heads."

 

So, if you assume winning 3 of the push games and all 5 of the "gimmies" then you're at 8-4 on the season. The good coaches win more than 50% of those push games and maybe pull off an upset.

 

If they lose more than 50% of the push games and more than 1 "gimmie " that's on the coaches - unless the team suddenly lost a bunch of talent out of nowhere.

[Count 'Bility]

The Mich St game shoulda been lost like 6 different times all in the final 2 minutes. Armstrong threw 2 legit int's on his final 3 attempts that were dropped that shoulda resulted in a loss. Is that Dantonio's fault? Or cogs in the 60 minute process of a football game?

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

I'm so sick of "we don't have the talent" arguments. Eichorst himself said we had the talent to win championships on hand when he made the change.

 

It's not until his pick registered a clunker that we read all these arguments about NU not having enough talent.

 

NU had enough talent to win the B10W last year. Hell, we beat the conference champion.

 

The problem isn't talent. The problem is a staff that did a poor job preparing our guys to compete and win week in and week out.

we have talent

 

we dont have the talent to compete at the level we demand, as a program, as a fanbase, as a state.

 

this is fact. Team recruiting rankings dont lie. There's 20 years of data to prove it.

 

But talent wasnt the issue in most of our losses. I'll agree to that. But those losses also didnt ONLY come down to questionable decisions in crunch time. Games are a process of 60 minutes. Players play. Coaches coach. For every thing ppl wanna knock the coaches for and knee jerk to blame that one instance for a loss, I'll sit and watch film and point out 20 obvious mistakes players make that I GUARANTEE the coaches are not teaching.

 

Our kicker missed two relatively easy field goals against BYU earlier in the game.

Of course coaches don't teach mistakes. But it is their job to put their guys in a position to avoid them or overcome them.

 

BYU should never have come down to a couple of missed field goals.

 

Correct. That is the point I'm making. it's not the hail mary, cuz two field goals were missed that woulda iced it.

 

No it's not just the field goals. It's a complilation of things, on both the coaches and the players.

 

Putting players in positions to not make mistakes? When theres a TE in the flat wideopen, and the coach tells yhou before the play "Tommy, Cethan will be wide open in the flat. Hit him. Get the first" and he goes out and throws the fade, is that the coaches fault?

 

coaches coach. players play.

 

Im not absolving coaches. I'm just saying it's not ALL the coaches. Lots of ppl dont understand that. Like the players are robots and the coaches are holding the controllers.

[marko polo]

When folks want these coaches to tailor their system to the players they have, I have two questions for them.

1) Would you rather have a mexican teaching spanish? or French?

2) If you keep tailoring your system, at what point is YOUR system, and your true expertise fully implemented? Because every time you turn back the clock schematically for one player, you delay the development and implementation of your system of the players that do fit your scheme. That's why I'm a fan of full blown, cold turkey switch. This is our expertise. This is what we're teaching. Dun.

 

Look. Nebraska wasn't gonna compete for National and Conference championships in 2015. We're not going to in 2016. So quit bein a whiny bitch it about and let the coaches establish their culture and program. Hypocrites. Using the 25 years we waited for under Osborne as a constant excuse to keep Bo, yet want these guys gone in less than 24 months. Then 3-4 years in, like Callahan, if it just isnt ticking, then we go a different way. But sit and constantly bitch "well they dont run the option with Tommy enough", cuz what difference does it make you have mediocre teaching for Tommy's comfort, or mediocre play for the coach's comfort? Either way we're just plain F'd right now to an extent. It's a common consequence to coaching changes for programs like Nebraska who havent been recruiting at an elite to where it's literally just plug and play cuz your talent can over come fit deficiancies.

Well if you cut right to it, we did try to put that square peg in that other hole! I think people are leery of the likely hood that we are going to try to be a pass/happy/finesse kind of team because that's the way this staff rolls at its core. personally I don't think that approach will ever get and keep us relevant in this conference or the nation, and if you are going to try that, you better have a quarterback with a lot more skills and acumen than Tommy has, and a kick ass Defense.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

After having taken the time to rewatch the entire 2015 season's games a couple more times,

 

You're a braver man than I.

[Count 'Bility]

they werent always a spread type of finesse team at Oregon St. Pretty good variety over the years. Of course all depending on matchups and personnel.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQtyljn_a4

 

Not much finesse there is there?

 

I understand how folks relate "passing" to finesse. I get it. Esp here. But what if i told you that relative to what smashmouth football actually was, the things Osborne was doing in his last few years was "finesse". These guys may like to throw the ball more-a 50/50 tick is ideal-but that doesnt necessarily mean finesse. Callahans offense was not finesse. It was conventional with a lot of good hard, base power run game. I think that's what these guys really want. But sometimes the matchups dont allow for such, in whcih you have to adjust on the fly based on how a game plays out and situations etc. We ran on UCLA cuz we could. We didnt run against other teams because it became clear we couldnt.

[GBRFAN]

 

Interesting how you accept SE words to explain the talent of our players, however his choice on coaches is not valued.

So, you disagree with SE's take on out talent, but love his coaching pick?

 

Btw, not that you'll believe me, but I like Riley fine and value his approach to coaching. If he gets back to .700+ I'll want to keep him. So don't put words in my mouth about Eich's choice of new coach. I just don't think he should have even been making a choice.

 

 

Nice try on spinning that first part.....NO I don't disagree with SE and never have stated anything similar - Our talent is good enough to win, however so is our coaching!!!

[cm husker]

 

Putting players in positions to not make mistakes? When theres a TE in the flat wideopen, and the coach tells yhou before the play "Tommy, Cethan will be wide open in the flat. Hit him. Get the first" and he goes out and throws the fade, is that the coaches fault?

 

 

Please link to the evidence that conversation took place.

 

Because I don't believe you. I'd have to look back at the video, but was there even a conversation between TA and Langs before that play?

 

That's my whole problem with this system and the blame you're putting on TA. He made the right read and still made the wrong decision. That's a significant issue in the system.

 

No one has ever said "it's all on the coaches." It's the totality of the evidence over time that indicates whether there's a coaching issue or not. One or two losses a season may be excusable as "just part of the game." When you drop 7 games, including to teams like BYU, Purdue and Illinois, it reflects awful preparation and execution, and that's on the staff.

[cm husker]

I understand how folks relate "passing" to finesse. I get it. Esp here. But what if i told you that relative to what smashmouth football actually was, the things Osborne was doing in his last few years was "finesse". These guys may like to throw the ball more-a 50/50 tick is ideal-but that doesnt necessarily mean finesse. Callahans offense was not finesse. It was conventional with a lot of good hard, base power run game. I think that's what these guys really want. But sometimes the matchups dont allow for such, in whcih you have to adjust on the fly based on how a game plays out and situations etc. We ran on UCLA cuz we could. We didnt run against other teams because it became clear we couldnt.

 

Clear to whom?

 

The way we ran the ball, schematically, much of the year would have been like coming out and throwing nothing but fade routes, having 60% of them go incomplete and deciding that the "passing game" isn't working.

 

Don't full yourself about what Riley and Langs want to do offensively. They pay lip service to the run, but there's no doubt that Langs is a pass first, prostyle guy all the way.

[QMany]

Let's see how they do in our first three games this fall and I expect at that point, we can reasonably discuss the coaches, their 'schemes' and adaptations to the available players and the opponents faced. Game plans have to be developed to fit the players that will actually be playing in that particular game (adjusted for injuries, other absences, deficiencies, etc) and designed with the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposing team. Nothing Earth shattering with this. These coaches will have had adequate time to build some basic trust, instill the kind of attitude and understanding in the players of their 'systems' and methods and schemes and play designs and etc. The 20916 by game 4 should be pretty well adept at running the 'Riley & Company' plays effectively. Every team tends to improve as each season progresses and, absent injury losses, the team should be playing its best by the end of the year. But, most of the kinks and wrinkles should be smoothed out by game 4, just in time for the conference schedule to start. While we all want the team to win every game, the critical games at this juncture in the Riley program development, is still finding a way to play our best in the critical conference games, ultimately in hopes of winning the Big Ten west division race.

 

After having taken the time to rewatch the entire 2015 season's games a couple more times, I believe there is clear evidence that the team struggled in the first half of the season to accept the new coaches and schemes, etc. There seemed to be a general lack of confidence and in some cases effort. However, by the second have of the season, the effort was there and despite a slate of opponents that were improving and overall more challenging in my view than the first half schedule the team DID GET BETTER. Improvement can be seen across the offensive lines, the secondary, the running backs, the linebackers, and D line. The receivers were very good from game one and Tommy A played his usual (good mixed with not so good) all the way through. I believe some of Tommy's forced throws and interceptions and so on were motivated, in part at least, by Tommy feeling intense pressure to find a way to win on his own. By Nov. 1, the season looked quite bleak and yet, somehow, the team hung in there and turned things around, winning several big games. The Iowa loss hurt but it was a sort of 'do or die' kind of point in time as the team desperately wanted to find a way to be the unbeaten team and get to a bowl and finish 7-6 but fell to 5-7 in the process. Had we played as well vs Iowa as we did later vs UCLA, we would have won. IMO. Give these coaches a chance to prove themselves with this team. Hopefully, no major distractions (another death in the Husker family or legal issue or critical injuries, etc), will enable the Huskers to do better.

Except for the pesky fact that we lost to Northwestern and PURDUE in the second half of the season...

[Count 'Bility]

 

I understand how folks relate "passing" to finesse. I get it. Esp here. But what if i told you that relative to what smashmouth football actually was, the things Osborne was doing in his last few years was "finesse". These guys may like to throw the ball more-a 50/50 tick is ideal-but that doesnt necessarily mean finesse. Callahans offense was not finesse. It was conventional with a lot of good hard, base power run game. I think that's what these guys really want. But sometimes the matchups dont allow for such, in whcih you have to adjust on the fly based on how a game plays out and situations etc. We ran on UCLA cuz we could. We didnt run against other teams because it became clear we couldnt.

 

Clear to whom?

 

The way we ran the ball, schematically, much of the year would have been like coming out and throwing nothing but fade routes, having 60% of them go incomplete and deciding that the "passing game" isn't working.

 

Don't full yourself about what Riley and Langs want to do offensively. They pay lip service to the run, but there's no doubt that Langs is a pass first, prostyle guy all the way.

 

We didnt run the ball well at all most of the time last year. "Run the ball" guys wants us to run, but should we pound and pound play after play, and be in 3rd and 8 all day? The consistency wasnt there. Not too mention youre holding a play card as an OC, with the urgency in the back of your head that the defense is gonna give up some points any minute now. These are the things you have to juggle as a play caller. "Run the ball" guy is a moron. I know. I used to be one.

[cm husker]

I'm going to defer to Mavric on the running point, because he's posted the facts over and over. I don't feel like repeating them again. Maybe he'll send you a link.

[cm husker]

 

Let's see how they do in our first three games this fall and I expect at that point, we can reasonably discuss the coaches, their 'schemes' and adaptations to the available players and the opponents faced. Game plans have to be developed to fit the players that will actually be playing in that particular game (adjusted for injuries, other absences, deficiencies, etc) and designed with the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposing team. Nothing Earth shattering with this. These coaches will have had adequate time to build some basic trust, instill the kind of attitude and understanding in the players of their 'systems' and methods and schemes and play designs and etc. The 20916 by game 4 should be pretty well adept at running the 'Riley & Company' plays effectively. Every team tends to improve as each season progresses and, absent injury losses, the team should be playing its best by the end of the year. But, most of the kinks and wrinkles should be smoothed out by game 4, just in time for the conference schedule to start. While we all want the team to win every game, the critical games at this juncture in the Riley program development, is still finding a way to play our best in the critical conference games, ultimately in hopes of winning the Big Ten west division race.

 

After having taken the time to rewatch the entire 2015 season's games a couple more times, I believe there is clear evidence that the team struggled in the first half of the season to accept the new coaches and schemes, etc. There seemed to be a general lack of confidence and in some cases effort. However, by the second have of the season, the effort was there and despite a slate of opponents that were improving and overall more challenging in my view than the first half schedule the team DID GET BETTER. Improvement can be seen across the offensive lines, the secondary, the running backs, the linebackers, and D line. The receivers were very good from game one and Tommy A played his usual (good mixed with not so good) all the way through. I believe some of Tommy's forced throws and interceptions and so on were motivated, in part at least, by Tommy feeling intense pressure to find a way to win on his own. By Nov. 1, the season looked quite bleak and yet, somehow, the team hung in there and turned things around, winning several big games. The Iowa loss hurt but it was a sort of 'do or die' kind of point in time as the team desperately wanted to find a way to be the unbeaten team and get to a bowl and finish 7-6 but fell to 5-7 in the process. Had we played as well vs Iowa as we did later vs UCLA, we would have won. IMO. Give these coaches a chance to prove themselves with this team. Hopefully, no major distractions (another death in the Husker family or legal issue or critical injuries, etc), will enable the Huskers to do better.

Except for the pesky fact that we lost to Northwestern and PURDUE in the second half of the season...

 

 

And a very overrated Iowa team.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

Putting players in positions to not make mistakes? When theres a TE in the flat wideopen, and the coach tells yhou before the play "Tommy, Cethan will be wide open in the flat. Hit him. Get the first" and he goes out and throws the fade, is that the coaches fault?

 

 

Please link to the evidence that conversation took place.

 

Because I don't believe you. I'd have to look back at the video, but was there even a conversation between TA and Langs before that play?

 

That's my whole problem with this system and the blame you're putting on TA. He made the right read and still made the wrong decision. That's a significant issue in the system.

 

No one has ever said "it's all on the coaches." It's the totality of the evidence over time that indicates whether there's a coaching issue or not. One or two losses a season may be excusable as "just part of the game." When you drop 7 games, including to teams like BYU, Purdue and Illinois, it reflects awful preparation and execution, and that's on the staff.

 

That's not an issue with THIS system. That was the issue with the previous system, that was based on fast tempo and erratic play. And garbage qb coaching.

 

No i dont have evidence of such a statement. But jesus. Cmon. These coached are analyzing tendancies for 55 mintues of a game. And when that plays called you can bet your ass something along those lines took place. Good god. A guy dont come that wide open without a playcaller expecting him to be such. They called the perfect play for such a scenario. it was Tommy's lack of ablility to play within the moment and do the little thing for a change. That's a result of previous garbage coaching and developement under the current staff.