USC: What Did We Learn

The bold below is really frustrating. The defense did enough to win the game but again the Offense could not generate the points when needed. Outside of EJ we had little O.

www.si.com

Solid Game Plan, Costly Game Management: How Nebraska Football Let USC Off the Hook

The Nebraska football team lost a heartbreaker in Lincoln on Saturday night to #23 USC, 21-17. The Big Red led for pretty much all of the 1st half and a good ch
www.si.com www.si.com
I still believe Matt Rhule is the right guy to lead this program, and I believe he can figure out how to get Nebraska to the point of being a perennial college football playoff contender. But you can believe those things and still call out shortcomings when you see them. Whether it’s hiring an assistant, or an analytics guy, or whatever it might be, he has to get better at game management. Furthermore, something needs to change on offense. With Dana Holgorsen running the offense originally installed by Marcus Satterfield two years ago, it seems they are floundering without an identity. The Husker O has now been held to under 300 total yards in four of its last five games.
Click to expand...



Game Management + Play Calling. I’m going to lump these into the same section because, at least for this game, they go hand-in-hand to explain why Nebraska lost. In my opinion, Nebraska lost this game as a result of the first three drives of the 2nd half.

  • First of all, it is inexcusable to come out of halftime with a 14-6 lead, receive the ball, and go 3-and-out. I can’t for the life of me understand why Holgorsen dialed up a deep shot on the first play of the half. Nothing about the Huskers’ offense to this point in the season would suggest that’s a high confidence, high probability play. It of course didn’t connect, and Nebraska punted two plays later.
  • Not to worry, you say? The Blackshirts picked off Jayden Maiava on the very next play, you say? What a fantastic effort by cornerback Andrew Marshall, and a huge break for the Big Red. The Huskers’ next three plays went like this: Emmett Johnson 7 yard run; incompletion; Emmett Johnson 4 yard run. At 1st and 10 at the USC 23 yard line, Nebraska was in prime position to get points, and the move seemed abundantly clear: feed Emmett all the way to the end zone. What did the Huskers do instead? They dialed up a pass play which led to a Raiola fumble and injury that kept him out the remainder of the game. In the moment, it was a disaster for Nebraska. Long term, as of this writing, it looks like Raiola is out for the remainder of the season. Absolutely brutal outcome for this team.
  • Even after that debacle, the Blackshirts responded once again. The Trojans got one 1st down, but then the Husker defense stoned the Trojans on 4th and 2, getting the ball back to the offense with Nebraska still holding a 14-6 lead. After two Emmett Johnson runs led to a 1st down, a USC defender pushed Nebraska offensive lineman Turner Corcoran well after the play. It should have been a penalty. It was a bad no-call. But then Matt Rhule called a timeout to plead his case with the officials. I have no idea what Nebraska’s head man was thinking here. It was a bad missed call, but it’s not something that can be overturned upon review. There was no reason to call the timeout. Three plays later, the Huskers faced a 4th and 1 at the USC 34. It initially looked like Nebraska was going to go for it, with Tight End/former quarterback Heinrich Haarberg under center. Instead, the Huskers burned a second timeout, opting to try a 52 yard field goal which just missed.
At this point, the old sinking feeling started to come back. With more than five minutes left in the 3rd quarter, we had squandered two golden opportunities, and burned two timeouts. When USC scored 5 plays later, and converted the two point conversion to tie it at 14, it felt like the momentum had completely shifted.
Click to expand...
 
TGHusker said:
The bold below is really frustrating. The defense did enough to win the game but again the Offense could not generate the points when needed. Outside of EJ we had little O.

With Dana Holgorsen running the offense originally installed by Marcus Satterfield two years ago, it seems they are floundering without an identity. The Husker O has now been held to under 300 total yards in four of its last five games.
Click to expand...

I tend to dislike the phrase "offensive identity" in general. It just kind of strikes me as dumb jock talk that doesn't necessarily really mean anything (and I know you didn't write that quote TGHusker, so that's not directed at you :) ).

If you have a dominant offensive line, you don't necessarily have to have an identity; anything you run kind of tends to just work. And basically every football team at every level strives to have a dominant line. So, you kind of either have a good line or you don't.

I'd typically look at it more meaningfully though from the standpoint of "what are we good at?" And I think that's where the interesting discussion points lie. What's the answer there?

Well. We have a running back that's really good at turning nothing into something. We have (now 'had') at QB who's really good at hitting receivers when he actually decides to throw and when a defender isn't sitting in the gap to pick the pass off.

Like the rest of those quotes from your post go on to say, I think a huge problem has been Holgorsen calling low-percentage pass plays on 1st downs. I'm starting to sound like a broken mp3 on that one, but it's a huge negative point.
 
Last edited:
CheeseHusker said:
Raiola out for the year. What a miserable weekend. Packers lose at home to Carolina AND lose Kraft for the year. And I hate the Dodgers.
Click to expand...

My Saturday evening had my Warriors, Huskers and World Series playing at the same time. I recorded all three and watched them all in succession

Spent six hours on the couch and went 0 for 3.

49ers win salvaged the weekend.
 
Undone said:
I tend to dislike the phrase "offensive identity" in general. It just kind of strikes me as dumb jock talk that doesn't necessarily really mean anything (and I know you didn't write that quote TGHusker, so that's not directed at you :) ).

If you have a dominant offensive line, you don't necessarily have to have an identity; anything you run kind of tends to just work. And basically every football team at every level strives to have a dominant line. So, you kind of either have a good line or you don't.

I'd typically look at it more meaningfully though from the standpoint of "what are we good at?" And I think that's where the interesting discussion points lie. What's the answer there?

Well. We have a running back that's really good at turning nothing into something. We have (now 'had') at QB who's really good at hitting receivers when he actually decides to throw and when a defender isn't sitting in the gap to pick the pass off.

Like the rest of those quotes from your post go on to say, I think a huge problem has been Holgorsen calling low-percentage pass plays on 1st downs. I'm starting to sound like a broken mp3 on that one, but it's a huge negative point.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seems more and more that the answer to success isn't always how many 5 star skill players you have (although having a boatload won't hurt) but how many skilled 4&5 star linemen you have. I think that is true for the defense also. The Nebraska dynasty was great because we had great O and D lines. The formula never changes. I hope the Rhule extension came with promises of more NIL money and that the NIL money is spent on OL, rush end, interior D linemen - and on someone who can either backup EJ or replace him if EJ goes to the NFL.
It is a shame that we do not have an adequate #2 RB at this point. That is on coaching (recruit and develop). It is also a shame that we didn't have an adequate game plan prepared for our backup QB to be successful if he was called upon. He was kind of 'deer looking into the headlights' while out there. Big moment and a lot of pressure.
 
TGHusker said:
I agree. It seems more and more that the answer to success isn't always how many 5 star skill players you have (although having a boatload won't hurt) but how many skilled 4&5 star linemen you have. I think that is true for the defense also. The Nebraska dynasty was great because we had great O and D lines. The formula never changes. I hope the Rhule extension came with promises of more NIL money and that the NIL money is spent on OL, rush end, interior D linemen - and on someone who can either backup EJ or replace him if EJ goes to the NFL.
It is a shame that we do not have an adequate #2 RB at this point. That is on coaching (recruit and develop). It is also a shame that we didn't have an adequate game plan prepared for our backup QB to be successful if he was called upon. He was kind of 'deer looking into the headlights' while out there. Big moment and a lot of pressure.
Click to expand...
We ran the ball for 188 yards with an average of 4.7 per carry. We gave up one sack. I don't see the O line being the problem Saturday night. The D line was a different story.
 
BigRedBuster said:
We ran the ball for 188 yards with an average of 4.7 per carry. We gave up one sack. I don't see the O line being the problem Saturday night. The D line was a different story.
Click to expand...
I think you are correct on the OL game - maybe it is the play calling - we stalled out several times when we had opportunities. And yes, the D line gave up runs at the worst possible time and I'm not sure if we got one sack or not - a couple of hurries.
 
I have defended the playcalling in general, IMO there have generally been good looks and we just haven't always hit them. But I do wish we would try a downfield answer that isn't just a fade. Both Hunter and Key can pull in some highlight reel catches, but it's just such a low percentage throw. I also wish we would play Barney outside some, he has shown the ability to make contested catches and it feels like a waste to just have him running hitches and arrows.

Defensively, I don't really have any issues. We have a bad run defense, but I think there was a calculated decision to continue playing the pass knowing that Riley wouldn't stick with the run when it counted. Holding them to 21 where they needed a dumb PI and a great throw and catch on a reasonably well covered flea flicker should be enough to win. Penn State and Iowa will absolutely run the ball 50 times if they can get away with it so this gameplan won't work again, but it's going to be a totally different plan and I'm hopeful we can slow down their running games when that is our primary focus.
 
Rhule mentioned Jacory being wide open a few times, one of them was the dropped-snap screen. There are not a bunch of safeties off screen, this was a walk in TD if Hunter + 3 OL can wall off one corner and one safety. Not sure if the other(s) were downfield, and I'm very curious what the sack+fumble+injury looked like as far as coverage.
1762192825156.png
 
Husker_In_WI said:
Rhule mentioned Jacory being wide open a few times, one of them was the dropped-snap screen. There are not a bunch of safeties off screen, this was a walk in TD if Hunter + 3 OL can wall off one corner and one safety. Not sure if the other(s) were downfield, and I'm very curious what the sack+fumble+injury looked like as far as coverage.
View attachment 22849
Click to expand...

And, if it was set up so well, we could have .... you know .... called it again later to see if we could get it to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top