Lack of offensive creativity

[SECHusker]

This cracks me up whenever I see it. If Harvard played against Wisconsin, they'd have a desire to win. The "they didn't want it as much" schtick is just silly. Psychology is a factor in football. It's not the #1 factor. It means 1 time out of 10 a team like Iowa State can beat a team like Oklahoma.

Wisconsin ran the same play because it worked. When you run plays that don't work, you get creative and try something new. I said the same thing during the game when we were still in it. We just run straight at the line every time. When it works every time, you keep doing it. When it doesn't, you don't.

It's not taking a pass on coaching to say that there wasn't a desire to win. I'm saying the dropped passes, the inability to break coverages, the fumble, the inability to finish blocks, and the inability for the TEs to do anything in the game those are mental issues.

Your Harvard analogy is crap in this situation. We have comparable if not better athletes than Wisconsin, but they have a different mentality than we do.

 

[Mierin]

It's not taking a pass on coaching to say that there wasn't a desire to win. I'm saying the dropped passes, the inability to break coverages, the fumble, the inability to finish blocks, and the inability for the TEs to do anything in the game those are mental issues.

Your Harvard analogy is crap in this situation. We have comparable if not better athletes than Wisconsin, but they have a different mentality than we do.

No it's not - it's perfect actually. If desire to win is so damn important, it shouldn't matter what the caliber of athletes is. You said it was desire to win, period. You didn't say it was one factor.

 

[SECHusker]

No it's not - it's perfect actually. If desire to win is so damn important, it shouldn't matter what the caliber of athletes is. You said it was desire to win, period. You didn't say it was one factor.

Let me clarify. It's the most fundamental factor in football, and we don't have it. Whether we threw the ball 100 times or ran it 100 times, it would not have been determinative because our coaches and players are not ashamed of losing, as long as, "they are getting better." 

By your logic if we had a new coordinator, different system, or better play calling we would have won. But we've had multiple OCs and multiple systems since the glory days and the only constant is when we face tough defenses we punk up. That's mentality.

 

[Mierin]

We've had a different subset of players every single year since the "glory days." So the argument that it's mentality is extremely faulty. Mentality is not the most fundamental factor. If it was you could suit me up, a 30+ year old woman, and have me play center. I wanted to beat Wisconsin more than anyone, so I could definitely create a hole wide enough to drive a truck through.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an important factor. But it can't make up for bad play-calling and scheme and other much more important fundamentals. Like I said before, psychology means a team with inferior athletes has a chance to beat a team with superior athletes. If Nebraska and Wisconsin were equal in all ways, the team who wanted it more would win. But they aren't equal in all ways. Wanting it more wouldn't have been enough to win this game. Lack of creativity in the running game was a more important factor than mentality. Not the only factor, but a bigger one.

 

[SECHusker]

We've had a different subset of players every single year since the "glory days." So the argument that it's mentality is extremely faulty. Mentality is not the most fundamental factor. If it was you could suit me up, a 30+ year old woman, and have me play center. I wanted to beat Wisconsin more than anyone, so I could definitely create a hole wide enough to drive a truck through.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's an important factor. But it can't make up for bad play-calling and scheme and other much more important fundamentals. Like I said before, psychology means a team with inferior athletes has a chance to beat a team with superior athletes. If Nebraska and Wisconsin were equal in all ways, the team who wanted it more would win. But they aren't equal in all ways. Wanting it more wouldn't have been enough to win this game. Lack of creativity in the running game was a more important factor than mentality. Not the only factor, but a bigger one.

I respectfully disagree. If play calling was be the determinative factor, then it would be chess. Football at it's most basic level comes down to players making plays. And while the play calling wasn't perfect, and it can definitely be shored up, there were certainly plays to be made.

And to be quite frank I would take 30 year old women, who have a desire to win, to block for me than the TEs that we have.  

A team with inferior athletes always has a chance to win. Look at Troy, they played more physical than LSU. NIU wanted it more. Michigan State wanted it more than UM.  Because for damn sure none of those teams had superior athletes.

We have a poison in this program that supercedes coaching, and that is our players don't have the desire nor the accountability to win. Winning has to be a part of you, regardless of championships, rings, or accolades and we don't have it.

 

[Mierin]

I respectfully disagree. If play calling was be the determinative factor, then it would be chess. Football at it's most basic level comes down to players making plays. And while the play calling wasn't perfect, and it can definitely be shored up, there were certainly plays to be made.

And to be quite frank I would take 30 year old women, who have a desire to win, to block for me than the TEs that we have.  

A team with inferior athletes always has a chance to win. Look at Troy, they played more physical than LSU. NIU wanted it more. Michigan State wanted it more than UM.  Because for damn sure none of those teams had superior athletes.

We have a poison in this program that supercedes coaching, and that is our players don't have the desire nor the accountability to win. Winning has to be a part of you, regardless of championships, rings, or accolades and we don't have it.

I don't disagree with everything in this post but the big difference here is you're essentially saying mentality is the only factor (originally) and at the very least an extremely important factor. I'm saying playcalling is an important factor, not the only, and that it's a lot more important than mentality.

You use the word "determinative," but I did not use that word. I said it was important. Since I didn't use the word "determinative," it wouldn't be like chess. The chess pieces all have the same levels of athleticism and intelligence... and mentality (which I don't deny is a factor).

 

[84HuskerLaw]

The 'want to' or desire to or hunger to win is a very important element.  Players with all the talent in the world won't win if they don't try.   Going three quarters speed or giving a half hearted effort won't cut it.   Harvard might beat Wisconsin if Wisconsin doesn't play hard.  If both teams play their hardest and give their utmost effort to win, the team with the best players and the best coaching will nearly always win.  The football is oval shaped and does bounce funny.  Officiating plays a role and can impact and even determine the winner of closely matched teams.  Weather, wind, crowd noise, etc and etc all play a part.  Some games more than others.  But , in general, the teams with the best players win ASSUMING both try their best.   

Bad game planning can have a very detrimental effect.  If a defense lines up improperly, over and over, and the players are not in the best position to defend a given play, then the poorer team may have considerable success.   It takes execution by all the players in their respective roles.   

In my view, the chess like aspects of football, played at a high level, is what makes it the greatest game ever invented.   This is where Tom Osborne excelled and seperated himself and his teams from most others.  His play calling was incredible.  Calling plays, as Tom liked to say, is more 'art' than science.  The play caller needs to have a good feel for what works and doesn't work and must take into consideration the down, distance, the ebb and flow of the game, the matches and mismatches, etc.  There are many variables and factors that must be considerein in each and every play call to be good at calling plays.   Plays are set up by prior plays and the circumstances.  It is a chess match in many ways.   The best chess player (play caller) can make a tremendous difference in the outcome of the game.   

 

[Mierin]

Well, that was a great argument 84.  Ok I take it back. I was saying it's like chess.

 

[Nebhawk]

It's not taking a pass on coaching to say that there wasn't a desire to win. I'm saying the dropped passes, the inability to break coverages, the fumble, the inability to finish blocks, and the inability for the TEs to do anything in the game those are mental issues.

Your Harvard analogy is crap in this situation. We have comparable if not better athletes than Wisconsin, but they have a different mentality than we do.

This is crap.  Its this thinking that has this program in shambles.  We don't have equal talent to Wisky.  We just don't.  We might have certain positions with better talent, but overall, we not as talented as Wisky.  Its the whole program that in need of reconstruction.  However, we have enough talent to compete with the right system and coach in place.  I will agree with that, but this whole thing about us having this over abundance of talent is getting old, like losing is getting old.  Each year we lose games to teams, and each year we are screaming its terrible coaching, no matter which coach is coaching.  I think its time to realize we are not getting the RIGHT talent to come here and compete.

 

[melscott62]

This is crap.  Its this thinking that has this program in shambles.  We don't have equal talent to Wisky.  We just don't.  We might have certain positions with better talent, but overall, we not as talented as Wisky.  Its the whole program that in need of reconstruction.  However, we have enough talent to compete with the right system and coach in place.  I will agree with that, but this whole thing about us having this over abundance of talent is getting old, like losing is getting old.  Each year we lose games to teams, and each year we are screaming its terrible coaching, no matter which coach is coaching.  I think its time to realize we are not getting the RIGHT talent to come here and compete.

I'm sorry but if you trade coaching staffs we win that game.

 

[junior4949]

I'm sorry but if you trade coaching staffs we win that game.

What makes you say this?  Wisconsin has pretty much traded coaching staffs three times, yet the same thing happens over and over again.  The only thing that might make this true is if Langs called all the plays for Wisconsin because he would have been passing instead of running. 

 

[BigRedBuster]

One week fans complain that we are trying to be too multiple.  Trying to run too many different plays.  Trying to be jack of all trades and master of none.

Next week fans complain that we aren't creative enough.  Aren't running enough variety of plays.  Aren't throwing enough at the defense to keep them on their heels.  

 

[ColoradoHusk]

One week fans complain that we are trying to be too multiple.  Trying to run too many different plays.  Trying to be jack of all trades and master of none.

Next week fans complain that we aren't creative enough.  Aren't running enough variety of plays.  Aren't throwing enough at the defense to keep them on their heels.  

I think there is a huge difference between being "multiple" and "creative".  Mavric has done the research on the offense and has shown that certain formations result in a run, and other formations result in a pass.  That's not being creative.

 

[InOmaha]

This offense is predictable enough that they guy sitting next to me at the Wisconsin watch party said this is were we throw a pass for a pick 6, just before the pass out to Ozigbo.  :facepalm:

If drunk people are picking up our tendencies based on down, distance, formation, and field position, how hard is it for the people that watch film and develop game plans for a living.

 

[Mavric]

One week fans complain that we are trying to be too multiple.  Trying to run too many different plays.  Trying to be jack of all trades and master of none.

Next week fans complain that we aren't creative enough.  Aren't running enough variety of plays.  Aren't throwing enough at the defense to keep them on their heels.  

First, do you have examples of the same poster making both those arguments or are you just cherry-picking in an attempt to discredit anyone who makes either assertion as being inconsistent?

Second, as @ColoradoHusk noted, those aren't necessarily the same thing.  Against Oregon, the majority of the running plays we called were some sort of counter action.  Since then, those plays have almost completely disappeared from the playbook.  We are stuck in the same rut we were last year - most runs are a straight-ahead inside zone run out of an obvious rushing formation.  People tried to play off that fact last year by using injuries as an excuse.  But here we are, in the same boat again.