2016 Blowouts - Talent or Coaching?

Count 'Bility said:
factor always forgotten in blowout losses is psychology. I believe that was the biggest factor against Iowa. It wasnt an effort thing, but sometimes youre just in the shitter mentally. The things that hurt us against iowa were things we hadnt seen a lot of, if at all all year.
Click to expand...
This X1000.

 
Some may view the copout answer as "both," but it's true in this case.

Talent, most assuredly, needs to get better. However, it's not so bad that Nebraska shouldn't be able to compete with and beat any team in the B1G on any given Saturday. The lack of depth and talent along the offensive line (as I continue to beat this drum) is probably one of the greatest deciding factors in their struggles against good teams in big games. That and the lack of a pass rush.

But, Nebraska just flat out played poorly against tOSU and Iowa. Missed assignments, silly mistakes and quite honestly what appeared to be a lack of effort... having nothing left in the tank (mainly against Iowa.) The first long touchdown run they gave up against Iowa could've been hit for a short gain, but IIRC we had one guy out of position and another player tripped.

Wisconsin is the quintessential example of how a perceived lack of "talent" can be made up for by a system and good coaching. In my opinion, if Nebraska had the system and development in place like Wisconsin, we'd win the big games Wisconsin typically effs up because they don't have the talent to consistently keep up.

 
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

Iowa isn't more talented. They played better, in general, and took advantage of our mistakes. That's not all coaching but I think it's fair to question how we practice when our coaches are saying things like, "Damn those Iowa practices must be tough!" With that out of the way, though, Riley's offense has something to do with it. I'm not sure how our defense can be as tough as that of a team that can run a true smashmouth offense. Can you tell I'm not an X's and O's guy? I boggle at the difference between Pac-12 and a B1G running games but I can recognize there's something to that.

Ohio State is more talented and our side also suffered the loss of a warrior at QB.

What drives me nuts is how TA's completion percentage puts us around the 8th percentile among FBS teams. It's not all about his accuracy (or lack thereof) either. Drops were part of it, too, and I've heard former players discuss technique (probably Aaron Semm or Jay Foreman on 1620 if people heard and can explain - I didn't get it).

 
I think it's mostly coaching with the mitigating factor of injuries. A lot must be due to mental preparation and the ability to fluidly adjust during the game. I like Riley-a lot but I think he was a bit naive to the pressure/expectations/attention at Nebraska and the Big10 style of play. Takes time for coaching adjustments but I think he's willingly.

 
It's on the psyche of the players, and the coaching.

I'll give them the OSU loss as a mulligan. That was a bad start that snowballed against an angry OSU team once Tommy got hurt.

But the player effort, gameplanning, and playcalling against Iowa looked like the Illinois and Purdue games from 2015.

 
Making Chimichangas said:
It definitely is talent and coaching. As others said, against Ohio State it mostly our disparity in talent compared to the Buckeyes. Against Iowa, it was just one of turd games where the Huskers utterly didn't show up. One could make the case that both scenarios point to poor coaching. However, coaching only goes so far. For example, you think LB coach Trent Bray coaches LB Josh Banderas to consistently over-pursue? Or that RBs coach Reggie Davis coaches Terrell Newby to jitter and shake so much at line of scrimmage? Point is, it is the players on the field who have to take what they learn in practice and apply it in games.

Which brings me to the real reason Nebraska has stunk it up this season: poor QB play. The simple fact is, we have literally no one to replace Tommy Armstrong and he knows it. So if he plays poorly, or makes a lot of bad decisions, he knows the coaches aren't going to pull him. I like Tommy Armstrong as a young man. He's always been good off the field and he's never done anything to embarrass the university. But as a QB, he's just not capable for the type of offense Mike Riley runs. Now, you put Tommy in Tom Osborne's or Paul Johnson's offense, and he'd flourish. But a west coast passing offense? Nope. On a side note: I believe Armstrong will play in the NFL, just not at QB. I think he could get a few snaps as a wildcat QB but he'll need to make his living at some other position.
Click to expand...
Just to add to what you are saying, I think the entire team knew how banged up Tommy was and for the Iowa game they basically packed it in and gave a half hearted effort. The coaches certainly have some role in this but I don't know how much. I hope it is a long time before we have walk on back up QB's again at NU.

 
I don't consider the loss to Iowa a blowout. There were plenty of those types of games for Nebraska going back to well before I was born. In the old days they called holding and coaches were nicer to each other. Coaches running out the clock held down scores that could have been worse. If Armstrong hits open receivers running deep in the Iowa game it's a 1 score or better game late. PSU showed what can happen hitting deep open receivers against Wisconsin.

OSU was a butt kicking. We need better line play to keep that from happening. And a 2 deep that's at least as good as the best starters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
InOmaha said:
I don't consider the loss to Iowa a blowout. There were plenty of those types of games for Nebraska going back to well before I was born. In the old days they called holding and coaches were nicer to each other. Coaches running out the clock held down scores that could have been worse. If Armstrong hits open receivers running deep in the Iowa game it's a 1 score or better game late. PSU showed what can happen hitting deep open receivers against Wisconsin.

OSU was a butt kicking. We need better line play to keep that from happening. And a 2 deep that's at least as good as the best starters.
Click to expand...
Sorry but a 30 point differential is a blowout no matter how you try to spin it. If's and but's are useless. Heck if Tommy could've hit a wide open receiver we might have blown them out. The basic problem, in addition to nobody wanting to play, was Tommy is not a passer and couldn't run but the coaches went with him anyway. We will never compete with decent teams if our starting QB can't execute the offensive game plan and our 2nd string QB is a walk on and we apparently don't have a 3rd string QB. That is the definition of talent AND coaching being the problem.

Although I may not know what I'm talking about. I turned the game off at the start of the 3rd quarter when our coaches deemed the best plan was to keep going with a QB who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.

 
Lack of mental toughness. I swear it seems like when it's cold we don't play well. It's almost like comfort based decisions are being made in our preparation for these games (for example using the indoor practice facility vice going outside).

I don't think enough emphasis is being placed on mentally preparing for games.

 
JJHusker1 said:
InOmaha said:
I don't consider the loss to Iowa a blowout. There were plenty of those types of games for Nebraska going back to well before I was born. In the old days they called holding and coaches were nicer to each other. Coaches running out the clock held down scores that could have been worse. If Armstrong hits open receivers running deep in the Iowa game it's a 1 score or better game late. PSU showed what can happen hitting deep open receivers against Wisconsin.

OSU was a butt kicking. We need better line play to keep that from happening. And a 2 deep that's at least as good as the best starters.
Click to expand...
Sorry but a 30 point differential is a blowout no matter how you try to spin it. If's and but's are useless. Heck if Tommy could've hit a wide open receiver we might have blown them out. The basic problem, in addition to nobody wanting to play, was Tommy is not a passer and couldn't run but the coaches went with him anyway. We will never compete with decent teams if our starting QB can't execute the offensive game plan and our 2nd string QB is a walk on and we apparently don't have a 3rd string QB. That is the definition of talent AND coaching being the problem.
Although I may not know what I'm talking about. I turned the game off at the start of the 3rd quarter when our coaches deemed the best plan was to keep going with a QB who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.
Click to expand...
If that's the case then it has to be talent. Since every single coach has had those sort of games.

There are varying levels of being in games and it being hopeless. Iowa and Ohio State were different.

Being #1 yet loosing in 1996 to #17 Arizona State felt sort of like Iowa. 44 rushes for 130 yards and unable to get in field goal range.

Losing to Miami 22-0 felt like OSU. I'm not sure if they crossed into Miami territory until a drive in the 3rd quarter.

2 a year needs to stop. But with the playoffs set up this way and the polls, coaches are no longer gentlemen and will step on your neck to impress. So I'm sure those teams will get theirs someday. We've handed out plenty of beatings.

 
Nothing in life is black and white. Just like 1 play-call never wins or loses a single game, it's not so convenient to pin our blowouts on either coaching or talent. It's both ..... plus something else...

Agree with others that it's mostly psychological. You could see it from the very first snap at Ohio St. Our guys were scared sh*tless at the situation. The lights were SO bright. We had the nation's attention for one night. And we've seen that look before in other blowouts. They simply do not truly BELIEVE that winning the big game on the road is a reasonable outcome.

And that psychology, of course, can only REALLY be addressed by coaching. This is why it's so incredibly important to develop physicality up front on both sides of the ball -- something we are not even close to being. In order for our guys to start believing in the game, they have to feed off the energy of the guys up front. On defense, those guys would be able to set the tone by pressuring the QB, or being able to shake the nerves by running for nice 5-yd gains by following a physical offensive line.

Finally, of course, I would agree that we need better talent. You can never have enough of this. But look at Texas. Look at Tennessee. It's possible to have great talent on your roster and still be a mediocre team.

Most importantly, look at Wisconsin. We probably have SIMILAR talent, but our results on the field the past several years in big games could not possibly be more different.

Wisconsin doesn't take the field with the "deer in headlights" look. They always play very physically and make you beat them (they don't beat themselves). They suffered a major blowout under the brightest lights a couple years ago against Ohio St, but they seemingly forgot about it earlier this year when they took them to OT.

Our coaches have got to make us into a physical program again. Strength up front is always the great equalizer in the game.

 
At Michigan St, Nick Saban had average talent, had average results. At LSU he had above average talent, and had above average results. At the Dolphins he had equal/or below talent and had equal/below results. At bama hes had ridiculous talent and has ridiculous results.

Coaching is relative to the talent. You need talent to win? Who'd a thunk? Bo had 25-30 talent, and produced 25-30 results. Sometimes we played above that narrative, and sometimes below. But the overall narrative fit the level to a tee.

So im curious if these guys really do upgrade our talent level considerably what they can be capable of. The recruiting is part of it.

 
Ohio State: Coaching

  • The kids were obviously rattled by what happened. Calming the kids down and getting them focused is where they earn their pay.
  • Langsdorf set the kids up to fail as soon as Tommy was knocked out. Especially in the second half, he could have at least ran the ball more instead of going downfield every play. We wouldn't have won, but it wouldn't have been the complete Callahan-esque blowout that it was.
Iowa: Coaches and other

  • The kids were hobbled, tired, and emotionally drained. They coasted into Iowa City on emotional fumes.
  • The coaches, however, do own at least half of this failure, as our lack of depth comes from their decision to redshirt kids for 2017. It was a gamble, and that gamble had better pay dividends in 2017 and beyond, or folks will remember what could have been this year with just a bit more depth.
  • Also, Langsdorf called another s*** game and looked more like 2015 Langsdorf. Dude seriously needs to expand his running game playbook during the bowl season/off-season--I've seen Pee-Wee football games with a more varied running game. (No seriously--I know a Pee-wee coach that taught his kids the Triple Option, had FB dives, and a lot more)
  • And, BTW, where the hell is the FB play?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top