McKewon: Offensive play-calling did Husker defense no favors in second half of blowout loss to Ohio State

[Saunders]

A STONE’S THROW FROM THE AIRPORT IN COLUMBUS, Ohio — It’s well past midnight, and Waffle House is for winners.
A group of Ohio State fans — who surely loved the Buckeyes’ 62-3 stomping of Nebraska — are enjoying a late-night meal. Those kinds of meals do nasty things to your digestive system, but they’re fun when there’s a big win to relive. That, and it’s one of the few places open.
Another is a gas station. A few Husker fans walked in, as did I. One of those fans bought a packaged chef’s salad and bag of jalapeno Cheetos — an unholy marriage of lettuce and crunchy spice. Even in defeat, that guy was going to wreak total havoc on his stomach.

Mike Riley did something similar to his defense in the midst of the Buckeyes drubbing his team.
From the moment Tommy Armstrong left the field in an ambulance until the end of the game, Nebraska ran the ball eight times. Eight.
That’s how you go from trailing 24-3 to getting your face kicked in.
That’s how you go from a character-building loss to a potential program-rattling one.
That’s how you rival Bill Callahan for “exposing a decent defense to prolonged punishment on the road.”
That’s how you go from defining your season as “could win 10” to “whoa, 62-3.”

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/mckewon-offensive-play-calling-did-husker-defense-no-favors-in/article_d3abfa06-a484-11e6-b43d-4f520492a886.html

 

[Mierin]

I've wondered what the score would've been had Armstrong not been injured, just based on how short our offensive possessions were. We still would have lost in a blowout but I'm thinking more like 42-21.

 

[alwayshusking]

I think we should have just ran the ball more too in the 2nd half, but we're splitting hairs. Still lose 51-3 or so. 42-17 maybe if Tommy doesn't get knocked out in the 2nd. Lipstick on a pig.

And that run to Ozigbo on the outside, Newby wouldn't have gained much either the way it was blocked. Curtis Samuel couldn't have gotten outside.

 

[Kernal]

I usually enjoy McKewon's work, but this one was a dud.

The reality is once this game started it didn't matter what plays were called. Offensive players were not executing their blocking assignments (and appearing to not even try on several occasions) and defensive players were not tackling. And you can stop the analysis right there. Without those two things nothing else matters.

 

[Kernal]

I think we should have just ran the ball more too in the 2nd half, but we're splitting hairs. Still lose 51-3 or so. 42-17 maybe if Tommy doesn't get knocked out in the 2nd. Lipstick on a pig.

And that run to Ozigbo on the outside, Newby wouldn't have gained much either the way it was blocked. Curtis Samuel couldn't have gotten outside.

Here's another blocking gem:

 

[huskerfan92]

I agree that the play calling wasnt great. However, when you lose 62-3, play calling should be the LEAST of your concerns. there is a foundational problem with a 62-3 loss, not an in-game strategy problem.

we helped them get to 62-3 with the playcalling though. At some point you have to concede the game, and try to run some form of an offense. Seemed every play in the 2nd half was launch it downfield on a prayer. That stops the clock, and allows your defense to continue to get run over.

 

[Mavric]

I agree that the play calling wasnt great. However, when you lose 62-3, play calling should be the LEAST of your concerns. there is a foundational problem with a 62-3 loss, not an in-game strategy problem.

we helped them get to 62-3 with the playcalling though. At some point you have to concede the game, and try to run some form of an offense. Seemed every play in the 2nd half was launch it downfield on a prayer. That stops the clock, and allows your defense to continue to get run over.

Especially when the run is actually working better than the pass.

 

[GBRHouston]

Our playcalling bit us in the a$$ against Purdue, bit us in the a$$ against Wisconsin, and now it showed its ugly head here. If you don't want to give up 62 points, don't go 3 & out every time on offense, therefore forcing the defense to take the field so often.

 

[cornstar]

Our playcalling bit us in the a$$ against Purdue, bit us in the a$$ against Wisconsin, and now it showed its ugly head here. If you don't want to give up 62 points, don't go 3 & out every time on offense, therefore forcing the defense to take the field so often.

Langsdorf is awful. Wait until we no longer have a dual threat quarterback. That offense will be anemic.
Tommy has not improved under his "tutoring "

 

[NUance]

We had a lot of problems Saturday night. But the biggest problem was that we lost the battle of the trenches. On both sides of the ball. Especially on offense. How can you run the ball when your center gets shredded on nearly every play? Gates is the only guy we had who matched up okay against tOSU. But you can't build a running game around one player.

On defense we couldn't do anything at all against their offensive tackles. No pressure at all. We hardly had any plays where we put pressure on JT Barrett. Our DEs got pwned all night long. Couldn't get to the QB, and couldn't contain the edge. We won't be playing in Indy until we develop better lines[SIZE=11pt]—[/SIZE]on both sides of the ball.

 

[Saunders]

I agree that the play calling wasnt great. However, when you lose 62-3, play calling should be the LEAST of your concerns. there is a foundational problem with a 62-3 loss, not an in-game strategy problem.

we helped them get to 62-3 with the playcalling though. At some point you have to concede the game, and try to run some form of an offense. Seemed every play in the 2nd half was launch it downfield on a prayer. That stops the clock, and allows your defense to continue to get run over.

Bingo. Game was over at halftime. Slow the bleeding, get outta town. What happened on Saturday was Callahan v Texas Tech 2.0.

 

[GBRFAN]

I've wondered what the score would've been had Armstrong not been injured, just based on how short our offensive possessions were. We still would have lost in a blowout but I'm thinking more like 42-21.

How do we score 18 more points by running the ball. We were going to go 3 and out everytime. The only difference is the clock would have been running so the score would have been 48-3. I'm sorry but you got to play to win and we weren't going to win that game with RF and company running the ball.

 

[GBRFAN]

Sure we manage the score and lose 41-10. I'm sure the fans would be throwing the love around to the NU coaches and players.

 

[Count 'Bility]

lot of uncertainty surrounding the future of your star qb. Youre down 31-3 at half. That game was the least of our worried. Ask any true competitor. When youre gettin your teeth kicked in, it makes no difference if its by 30 or 60, and you wanna keep competiting at full capacity. We couldnt run the ball, so what's basically being suggested is running 3 and out for the sake of burning 3 minutes and heading out. We're so damn enamored with what happened in Lubbock 12 years ago. We gotta get Fyfe ready. For a bunch that's so obsessed with getting backup qb's MEANINGFUL snaps, it's being pretty double standard with the 2nd half playcalling. At that point, you've already washed your hands of it and are looking to next week and probing and prying to find some stuff to move forward with.

 

[Count 'Bility]

I agree that the play calling wasnt great. However, when you lose 62-3, play calling should be the LEAST of your concerns. there is a foundational problem with a 62-3 loss, not an in-game strategy problem.

It's not foundational. Not yet. That was buzzsaw theory in full effect. That game doesnt accurately depict the place of Ohio St and Nebraska as a program. it was a buzzsaw game, that creates a false perception of both teams. Ohio St isnt as good as they looked. Nebraska isnt really as bad as they looked. but theyre human. And sometimes you get a matchup on a particular night and all the circumstances and intangible stuff fall perfectly in place for something like this to happen. One team doesnt have it. The other is in prime form.

This isnt saying we coulda won the game. So dont go there. But we were perfectly capable of keeping it closer. I thought we might even win the game going in after watching Ohio St the previous weeks. I really thought it was possible. But I was also putting that big asterisk on there that if it wound up being their "get right" game as they have every year, it could get ugly. My fear rang true.

2007 was foundational problems with boat race after boat race. This is one deal. There is no foundational problem. Yet. i just thing this team may have hit a mental wall. here. Every week the Foltz thing is brought center stage, so these guys have to be reminded of that while trying to prepare for an already mentally demanding football game. Tommy went down and his health was unknownst to the team as they were playing. I think a lot of this stuff has finally cracked some of these guys after that tough deal at Wisconsin. We'll know Saturday. I feel like we may only get one more W in this reg season. If so, we need to find a way to be ok with that and continue to build on it.

I know folks are upset. But i could also see this being good for the team. No more ridiculous and insane talk about playoffs and such. Putting the cart way ahead of the horse some folks were. Now we can back to football and improving the program. Ohio St putting us back in our place and back to about #20ish may be a good thing.