Husker Coordinators

[Mavric]

 

Again, I'm no Armstrong apologist.

 

But he's not so inconsistent that he'll complete 70% of his passes one game and 37% the next if the same type of pass plays are being called.

 

 

Apologies, I haven't really read this thread before, but were the gameplans and play selection between Illinois to Indiana and Minnesota to Iowa that different?

 

Yes.

[Landlord]

Hm. I guess I'm more of an uneducated joe schmo than I thought because I don't remember the throws being all that dramatically different.

[Stumpy1]

They weren't that different. All the throws that TA was making in some games, he was missing in others. He WAS that inconsistent.

 

Mav is making it sound like we completely went away from the throws that TA was making earlier in the year and that is just plain false. Those same throws were there but TA wasn't hitting them.

[Mavric]

No. They really weren't.

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Ohio State? Against Iowa?

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Oregon, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota and Maryland?

 

It was not the same pass plays being called. Langsdorf even said that was the plan against Ohio State - to try to beat them deep. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

[ColoradoHusk]

One of the things I first heard about Langsdorf's and Riley's offense is that they like the QB to read from deep to shallow. So, if Armstrong's first read is the deep pass and he sees one on one coverage, he is more likely to throw that deep pass. Yes, it is on Armstrong to hit that deep pass, but he may be following Langsdorf's/Riley's offense.

 

Another thing about the Iowa game is that Armstrong was very injured with his hamstring. When he first injured his hamstring, the word is that he would probably be out for the remainder of the year. He probably wouldn't have played against Iowa if Fyfe hadn't broke his hand. Armstrong may not play the bowl game, his hamstring is that bad. If Armstrong can't get his legs into his throws, it's no wonder that he was more inaccurate against Iowa than he usually is.

[Mavric]

Here are screen grabs of our first 10 pass plays against Minnesota - that's over a third of the passes we threw for the game. Sorry the quality isn't great but I just grabbed a shot of the intended receiver and as many other receivers as I could get in the frame. TA completed over 70% of his passes this game.

 

As you can see, non of them is a bomb down the field. They are all outs, curls and screens. It's not that TA choose to throw short. It's that there wasn't an option to throw the deep ball so he HAD to throw it short. This is in stark contrast to games like Ohio State where Langsdorf said specifically that the game plan was to throw deep because they thought they could beat Ohio State over the top. I never heard him say that but my suspicion is that the Iowa game plan was much the same thinking.

 

If someone would like to do the research and find in those high-completion-percentage games that there were a bunch of options to throw deep but TA was choosing instead to throw short, I'd be interested to see it. But I don't think you'll find it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TAKODA]

Mav, I appreciate the level of research you do when you are providing your view point and while I think TA is a baller, you only have to look to last years Illinois game to see that TA has problems making the right decisions. I am not saying that Langs is the second coming, but I truely believe, when he gets a QB behind center that recognizes his philosophy and has the accuracy to implement his philosophy, you will see a giant stride in our offensive production.

 

The majority of plays called by Langs or any OC for that matter, typically has a clause in it (reads done by the QB). Also, someone mentioned 'touch' herein, and that has been a weak spot for TA since he stepped on the field. His trajectory is low (knocked down passes by D linemen) and he rifles a majority of his pass attempts (even short ones, which are uncatchable by the human hand).

 

Again, not trying to bash on TA but he is what he appears to be. Yes, he is a great athelete who gives us 110%.

[Making Chimichangas]

No. They really weren't.

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Ohio State? Against Iowa?

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Oregon, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota and Maryland?

 

It was not the same pass plays being called. Langsdorf even said that was the plan against Ohio State - to try to beat them deep. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

I do not doubt that was the game plan.

 

But why would the "game-plan" be so utterly stupid and basically give our offense, and team, almost no chance to win? (I guess I am asking rhetorically because only Langsdorf truly knows.)

 

Throwing the ball 40 or more yards down field is a very low percentage play as is.

 

But to repeatedly try that against one of the most talented teams, and defenses, in the country? Just made no sense whatsoever.

[Stumpy1]

No. They really weren't.

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Ohio State? Against Iowa?

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Oregon, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota and Maryland?

 

It was not the same pass plays being called. Langsdorf even said that was the plan against Ohio State - to try to beat them deep. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

You do realize that it could be the same play called with a route adjusted here or there for a certain look. It happens all the time. Beck was notorious for doing it.

[Mavric]

 

No. They really weren't.

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Ohio State? Against Iowa?

 

How many times did we throw 20+ yards downfield against Oregon, Northwestern, Illinois, Minnesota and Maryland?

 

It was not the same pass plays being called. Langsdorf even said that was the plan against Ohio State - to try to beat them deep. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't mean it's incorrect.

You do realize that it could be the same play called with a route adjusted here or there for a certain look. It happens all the time. Beck was notorious for doing it.

 

 

Is that what it looks like to you in the screen grabs I posted? Or should be just keep speculating?

[NUance]

Mav, I appreciate the level of research you do when you are providing your view point and while I think TA is a baller, you only have to look to last years Illinois game to see that TA has problems making the right decisions. I am not saying that Langs is the second coming, but I truely believe, when he gets a QB behind center that recognizes his philosophy and has the accuracy to implement his philosophy, you will see a giant stride in our offensive production.

 

The majority of plays called by Langs or any OC for that matter, typically has a clause in it (reads done by the QB). Also, someone mentioned 'touch' herein, and that has been a weak spot for TA since he stepped on the field. His trajectory is low (knocked down passes by D linemen) and he rifles a majority of his pass attempts (even short ones, which are uncatchable by the human hand).

 

Again, not trying to bash on TA but he is what he appears to be. Yes, he is a great athelete who gives us 110%.

 

Agreed. With every bit of it. +1

[Mavric]

Mav, I appreciate the level of research you do when you are providing your view point and while I think TA is a baller, you only have to look to last years Illinois game to see that TA has problems making the right decisions. I am not saying that Langs is the second coming, but I truely believe, when he gets a QB behind center that recognizes his philosophy and has the accuracy to implement his philosophy, you will see a giant stride in our offensive production.

 

The majority of plays called by Langs or any OC for that matter, typically has a clause in it (reads done by the QB). Also, someone mentioned 'touch' herein, and that has been a weak spot for TA since he stepped on the field. His trajectory is low (knocked down passes by D linemen) and he rifles a majority of his pass attempts (even short ones, which are uncatchable by the human hand).

 

Again, not trying to bash on TA but he is what he appears to be. Yes, he is a great athelete who gives us 110%.

 

I generally agree with your points. I've said since TA became the starter that he was terrible at decision-making. That's why I have given Langs credit for calling several games that basically took that decision-making out of TA's hands and forced the short throws. I just don't know why we went away from that in other games.

 

I've also said I'll give Langs more time with an actual QB to work with. That's why he's not on my check-list in this thread. I don't dislike the general design of his offense. My worry is that he doesn't really put it to the best use. He really wants to throw the ball. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, especially if we're completing mid-60%. But I don't think he has much feel for how to call the run game. And I think he'll be more prone to abandon the running game when he has a passing game that is more effective. Which will work in a lot of games because we have more talent than most teams we play. But I don't know if that will deliver championship-level football in the B1G in November.

[husker98]

 

Mav, I appreciate the level of research you do when you are providing your view point and while I think TA is a baller, you only have to look to last years Illinois game to see that TA has problems making the right decisions. I am not saying that Langs is the second coming, but I truely believe, when he gets a QB behind center that recognizes his philosophy and has the accuracy to implement his philosophy, you will see a giant stride in our offensive production.

 

The majority of plays called by Langs or any OC for that matter, typically has a clause in it (reads done by the QB). Also, someone mentioned 'touch' herein, and that has been a weak spot for TA since he stepped on the field. His trajectory is low (knocked down passes by D linemen) and he rifles a majority of his pass attempts (even short ones, which are uncatchable by the human hand).

 

Again, not trying to bash on TA but he is what he appears to be. Yes, he is a great athelete who gives us 110%.

 

I generally agree with your points. I've said since TA became the starter that he was terrible at decision-making. That's why I have given Langs credit for calling several games that basically took that decision-making out of TA's hands and forced the short throws. I just don't know why we went away from that in other games.

 

I've also said I'll give Langs more time with an actual QB to work with. That's why he's not on my check-list in this thread. I don't dislike the general design of his offense. My worry is that he doesn't really put it to the best use. He really wants to throw the ball. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, especially if we're completing mid-60%. But I don't think he has much feel for how to call the run game. And I think he'll be more prone to abandon the running game when he has a passing game that is more effective. Which will work in a lot of games because we have more talent than most teams we play. But I don't know if that will deliver championship-level football in the B1G in November.

 

 

because we wanted to win that's why. Against those other teams we needed to open it up and hope for something good to happen. Because those secondary's would have shut that short simple stuff down easy. Langs wanted to call a more complicated air attack but armstrongs inexperience and aggressive decision making made a bad situation worse.

[Mavric]

 

 

Mav, I appreciate the level of research you do when you are providing your view point and while I think TA is a baller, you only have to look to last years Illinois game to see that TA has problems making the right decisions. I am not saying that Langs is the second coming, but I truely believe, when he gets a QB behind center that recognizes his philosophy and has the accuracy to implement his philosophy, you will see a giant stride in our offensive production.

 

The majority of plays called by Langs or any OC for that matter, typically has a clause in it (reads done by the QB). Also, someone mentioned 'touch' herein, and that has been a weak spot for TA since he stepped on the field. His trajectory is low (knocked down passes by D linemen) and he rifles a majority of his pass attempts (even short ones, which are uncatchable by the human hand).

 

Again, not trying to bash on TA but he is what he appears to be. Yes, he is a great athelete who gives us 110%.

 

I generally agree with your points. I've said since TA became the starter that he was terrible at decision-making. That's why I have given Langs credit for calling several games that basically took that decision-making out of TA's hands and forced the short throws. I just don't know why we went away from that in other games.

 

I've also said I'll give Langs more time with an actual QB to work with. That's why he's not on my check-list in this thread. I don't dislike the general design of his offense. My worry is that he doesn't really put it to the best use. He really wants to throw the ball. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, especially if we're completing mid-60%. But I don't think he has much feel for how to call the run game. And I think he'll be more prone to abandon the running game when he has a passing game that is more effective. Which will work in a lot of games because we have more talent than most teams we play. But I don't know if that will deliver championship-level football in the B1G in November.

 

 

because we wanted to win that's why. Against those other teams we needed to open it up and hope for something good to happen. Because those secondary's would have shut that short simple stuff down easy. Langs wanted to call a more complicated air attack but armstrongs inexperience and aggressive decision making made a bad situation worse.

 

That's a lot of speculation on your part. What are the better passing attacks that Iowa shut down this year? How many above average passing teams did Ohio State play?

 

And considering those choices led to the worst blowouts of the year - one of the worst in school history in one case - it would seem that they were misguided.

[husker98]

 

 

 

Mav, I appreciate the level of research you do when you are providing your view point and while I think TA is a baller, you only have to look to last years Illinois game to see that TA has problems making the right decisions. I am not saying that Langs is the second coming, but I truely believe, when he gets a QB behind center that recognizes his philosophy and has the accuracy to implement his philosophy, you will see a giant stride in our offensive production.

 

The majority of plays called by Langs or any OC for that matter, typically has a clause in it (reads done by the QB). Also, someone mentioned 'touch' herein, and that has been a weak spot for TA since he stepped on the field. His trajectory is low (knocked down passes by D linemen) and he rifles a majority of his pass attempts (even short ones, which are uncatchable by the human hand).

 

Again, not trying to bash on TA but he is what he appears to be. Yes, he is a great athelete who gives us 110%.

 

I generally agree with your points. I've said since TA became the starter that he was terrible at decision-making. That's why I have given Langs credit for calling several games that basically took that decision-making out of TA's hands and forced the short throws. I just don't know why we went away from that in other games.

 

I've also said I'll give Langs more time with an actual QB to work with. That's why he's not on my check-list in this thread. I don't dislike the general design of his offense. My worry is that he doesn't really put it to the best use. He really wants to throw the ball. And I'm not necessarily opposed to that, especially if we're completing mid-60%. But I don't think he has much feel for how to call the run game. And I think he'll be more prone to abandon the running game when he has a passing game that is more effective. Which will work in a lot of games because we have more talent than most teams we play. But I don't know if that will deliver championship-level football in the B1G in November.

 

 

because we wanted to win that's why. Against those other teams we needed to open it up and hope for something good to happen. Because those secondary's would have shut that short simple stuff down easy. Langs wanted to call a more complicated air attack but armstrongs inexperience and aggressive decision making made a bad situation worse.

 

That's a lot of speculation on your part. What are the better passing attacks that Iowa shut down this year? How many above average passing teams did Ohio State play?

 

And considering those choices led to the worst blowouts of the year - one of the worst in school history in one case - it would seem that they were misguided.

 

 

It's called being observant, and common sense, mostly.

 

The Hawkeyes, i don't know if you are aware or not but they, do still have desmond king, one of the best cover corners in the BIG. The rest of their secondary was and is good enough to shut down a passing attack if there is no threat of a running game. i think you can see where im going with this. Throw a run game in there they get blown out, like how they did with penn state. even then they only gave up 240 yards to McSorley in the air and 164 rushingto the lions top RB. not great, but not awful either to the eventual BIG champs. But you probably noticed the relative balance in PSU's attack. they ran the ball 20 times with their best back, McSorley had eighteen attempts.

 

We had no such balance obviously due too a decimated o-line that was recovering by the iowa game but still out of sync as would be expected from a unit that hadn't spent more than three games playing together. We couldn't run it reliably and were naive to think we would. Top that off with a respectable but average running back along with our best runner (Armstrong) being gimp with a hamstring issue, our best power back (ozigbo) injured for much of the season.

 

We balled all these problems up and threw that at a disciplined and relatively healthy Iowa D! Tell me what you would have done? Throw it into corners that are playing aggressive and with safeties playing up to jump passing lanes? With a QB notorious for poor decisions, spoty mechanics, and accuracy, who is throwing on a bum hamstring to boot.

 

As for Ohio state they held Baker Mayfield and OU to 224 yards. Pretty good against their style of offense. So not sure what your point there is. Also did a good job against PSU in their loss. So what makes you think a short passing game with TA was going to change anything if a heisman caliber player in Mayfield couldn't do it?

 

Seriously what did you think was going to happen? You can point to stats and recruiting stars and how they translate to talent and thus why we shouldn't have lost this game and thus its the coaches fault somehow. But your just grasping at straws dude.

 

The only game we can actually second guess the staff this year on was wisconsin. Some decisions there were a little iffy.

 

The other two games we were not healthy, not even close at critical positions. Team that up with the defense dropping the ball and you have a blow out. I understand your anger and im mad too, there are things this staff does that drives me up a wall. But anyone who thinks your going to take a pistol read option offense and convert it to a pro style offense and be winning championships by year two is hilariously misinformed about how hard of a transition that is to make, and how incompatible the personnel are to each other.

 

This is a four year plus rebuilding job. Get comfy, because with two new Qb's next year its probably going to be much of the same.

 

End rant.