I guess we are over Tanner Lee

[84HuskerLaw]

The game got off to a horrible start and we found ourselves down two scores about 5 minutes into the game.  Not much of this can be assigned to poor QB play really.  Once the tone of the game changed and it was now certain that if we were going to win the game, we had to outscore them in a scoring race, the QB would naturally be under a great deal of extra pressure to find receivers down field and to find a way to score quickly.  Now, arguably that is also a good time to calm down, settle in and move the ball down the field methodically (by running as much as you can and throwing when necessary to move the chains and do things the traditional Nebraska way).  Unfortunately, this method is counter to Riley and Langs' instincts as they both seem utterly compelled to try to respond quickly (the quicker the better seemingly).   Arguably, you want to take about 12 plays and 5 minutes of game time to grind out a hard nosed, smashmouth drive for a TD.   This approach of course has several positives besides matching the score including giving the defense a good break and time to discuss and make adjustments on the sidelines and to begin and continue the process of wearing down the opposing defense (mentally and physically).   

 

The quick response score maybe makes the coaches and fans feel better because the score looks better but in the course of the game, it is the team who wins the final score that matters.  It is usually helpful to follow this game plan in general as the winningest college football programs have this one common denominator in their history.  They wear the opponents down with tough, hard nosed football (hard blocks and tackles and determination).  Flash and flare are fun at the moment they happen but to win consistantly, you need to be tougher than your oppoent as football is a game of brute force applied smartly. 

[krc1995]

2 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

The game got off to a horrible start and we found ourselves down two scores about 5 minutes into the game.  Not much of this can be assigned to poor QB play really.  Once the tone of the game changed and it was now certain that if we were going to win the game, we had to outscore them in a scoring race, the QB would naturally be under a great deal of extra pressure to find receivers down field and to find a way to score quickly.  Now, arguably that is also a good time to calm down, settle in and move the ball down the field methodically (by running as much as you can and throwing when necessary to move the chains and do things the traditional Nebraska way).  Unfortunately, this method is counter to Riley and Langs' instincts as they both seem utterly compelled to try to respond quickly (the quicker the better seemingly).   Arguably, you want to take about 12 plays and 5 minutes of game time to grind out a hard nosed, smashmouth drive for a TD.   This approach of course has several positives besides matching the score including giving the defense a good break and time to discuss and make adjustments on the sidelines and to begin and continue the process of wearing down the opposing defense (mentally and physically).   

 

The quick response score maybe makes the coaches and fans feel better because the score looks better but in the course of the game, it is the team who wins the final score that matters.  It is usually helpful to follow this game plan in general as the winningest college football programs have this one common denominator in their history.  They wear the opponents down with tough, hard nosed football (hard blocks and tackles and determination).  Flash and flare are fun at the moment they happen but to win consistantly, you need to be tougher than your oppoent as football is a game of brute force applied smartly. 

 

The bold has been typical of all big games in the last 15 years, regardless of who the coach is.  Except the UCLA game under Bo (which we lost after a big lead) and Wisconsin last year.  Why can't we play consistent ball for an entire game?

[Cdog923]

53 minutes ago, krc1995 said:

Nope- Best QB we've had in that 10 years.  Lots of potential.  He's a warrior and will work on the things he needs to work on.  He will make those around him do the same.    

 

Lol. 

[84HuskerLaw]

A great question for sure.  Somehow our coaches have to find a way to get the team motivated to come out and play hard every snap from start to finsih.  Over the years we have watched far too many games where we see our guys let up in the effort category, whether we find ourselves ahead or behind a couple scores.  There just doesn't seem to be that 'killer' mentality so much of the time.  Instead of playing harder and burying the opponent, we seem to let off on the gas.   Oregon, arguably, did this last night and almost lost a game they otherwise dominated in nearly all aspects of the game frankly.  The best team won the game but should have won by 21 points or more.  It was great to see our Huskers fight and claw and scratch and not give up which many past teams might have done.   Some how, we need to instill that focus and desire in the guys from the get go.  They need to understand that if they are going to win ANY of their games, it will be because they play harder and smarter for 60 minutes on each and every snap.  Many of our losses over the past 20 years, and even now and then, in the decades before that, were because we just weren't playing our very best.  It is very hard to do this but the teams that want to win the most, assuming a relative talent comparison, do.  

 

We are NOT outclassed by the Oregon Ducks strictly in terms of talent, although they have a number of players that could easily win starting spots on our team.  We are capable of beating them IF we played our best football.  But we are not.   Many reasons for this as many have discussed.

[ScottyIce]

2 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

After 8 years of converted DB's starting at QB for us, I'm going to give Lee a little more rope than his first 2 games at Nebraska.

 

Game 1: Literallt 2-3 poor throws.

Game 2: on road in a hellacious atmosphere for first time in career, almost leads team back from down 28, makes probably 6-7 poor throws.

 

Im still backing this guy.

[84HuskerLaw]

I have not given up on Lee by any means.  But, I don't think we can argue that he is off to a great start either.  I was not expecting heisman like numbers but I thought we might have one of the top 3 QBs in the Big Ten atleast.  At this point, I don't think he rates anywhere in that discussion.   There is plenty of time left and we got a couple games upcoming where he can get things going.  We need him to play much better if we are to win a majority of the remaining games certainly.  But the entire team needs to step it up a notch, or three in some cases.  Can that happen?   It is possible - we have players.  

[ColoradoHusk]

29 minutes ago, MattyIce said:

 

Game 1: Literallt 2-3 poor throws.

Game 2: on road in a hellacious atmosphere for first time in career, almost leads team back from down 28, makes probably 6-7 poor throws.

 

Im still backing this guy.

First time in his career?  I thought the thing that sold the coaches on Lee was his prior experience at Tulane?  Now he's being treated like a first time QB?  Seems very similar to the fans who want to treat Riley as a first time coach.

[The Dude]

34 minutes ago, MattyIce said:

makes probably 6-7 poor throws.

[KingBlank]

4 hours ago, Huskerfan55 said:

The best QB on the field last night by far was in Oregon colors.  Lee was what he was at Tulane an adequate QB 3 TD and 4 intercepts oh yeah one fumble was Tommy back playing yesterday!

Tired of an Oline that is very suspect and a defense who is beyond suspect!

No Tommy would have won

[HuskerNation1]

2 hours ago, The Dude said:

Basically we saw everything people hated about Armstrong (including multiple "could have been picks"), except without the running ability.

 

The major difference is we have highly regarded prospects on the bench instead of some walk-on from Wind River, Nebraska.

 

It's not peculiar that people want to see what they can do.

 

I fully agree with this.  If a QB is struggling in a winnable game as much as Lee was, and you have two other supposed studs on the bench, why not put one of them in for a drive or a quarter. It happens in all other sports, where the star or primary starter has a bad game and is benched, so I see no reason why the same does not hold true for the QB.

[HuskerNation1]

36 minutes ago, KingBlank said:

No Tommy would have won

 

I tend to agree that Tommy would have gotten Nebraska across the finish line which is hard to admit as I was never a huge fan of his effectiveness as a QB (loved his heart though).

[Sker fer life]

3 hours ago, In the Deed the Glory said:

 

This is asinine.  He led us back from down 28 to down 7 and driving with 2 minutes left.  You can question his decisions on his INTs and he did not have a great game by any stretch but to say that game Saturday showed no leadership and that he couldn't motivate them is ignorant.

Agreed, he has played two games.......two

[The Dude]

3 minutes ago, Sker fer life said:

Agreed, he has played two games.......two

Twenty-one, actually..........twenty-one.

[Sker fer life]

Just now, The Dude said:

Twenty-one, actually.......... twenty-one.

At Nebraska smarty pants........smarty pants.

[ScottyIce]

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

First time in his career?  I thought the thing that sold the coaches on Lee was his prior experience at Tulane?  Now he's being treated like a first time QB?  Seems very similar to the fans who want to treat Riley as a first time coach.

 

Are you pooping me? You think playing a Team tulane is the same as playing on the road at oregon? My point was, he has NEVER played in that arena before. Unless you think at Purdue is the same...