My take on our first two games

[knapplc]

Unfortunately I didn't get to watch the game or listen to much more than 3 or 4 mintues every half as I was committed to an event. I came home to watch and the wife had killed the DVR so....it sounds like I will be saved the stress. That being said...to me it sounds like the D-line greatly underperformed. I know several people I respect that have a good pulse on the program are very concerned. Its just as I had stated this summer...we're not as good there as we think. I personally think moving to a 3 lb system will hurt us this year. We were very efficient as a defense when we put in the peso a year ago and when we run it in practice we are very good still as the personnel groupings seem to be better. I hope we run it more in the future.

I know the offense was frustrating at times. I did hear a snip it from one coach that this week was similar to last week in that they decided to work on some things they've had continual issues with at times during the game rather than always call it based on what the defense was giving us. That makes me uncomfortable that we make decisions like that.

Woah, what?

On two levels. First, I completely agree that we shouldn't be doing that stuff in actual games. It is a mindset that does not seem to be typical of Bo, no matter who the opponent. Such as what you mentioned with the audibles and Taylor being told to just run the play so they could get it on tape. Screw that - these audibles are pretty new to Taylor, let him do it as much as he can, and let him get some confidence as they start working.

Second, I thought the hallmark of this new offense is that they weren't going to call it based on what the defense gave us.

I don't know where that game from. This offense is specifically designed to create mismatched base on defensive schemes and personnel. We attack and then exploit once they try to adjust to those mismatches. If thats not taking what the defense gives us I don't know what is. If we were running a power I then we'd be trying to impose on the D but I don't think we can do that well enough. Talking with some people (I still haven't watched the game) I was told we ran 4 different types of option again with the most success out of the diamond sets and the veer sets. Our belly option apparently fell flat on its face again and is weak. Although he thought maybe as the season goes on we might get the full back involved in that set and it would help open it up, but right now...that's the one that gets shut down.

You have to remember that zoogies has this knee-jerk reaction to anything that he perceives as a slight against Bill Callahan or Shawn Watson. He's still fighting that battle, four years and one year later.

Apparently those windmills won't tilt at themselves.

 

[bshirt]

as others have posted we would have lost this game the last two years.

:moreinteresting Standard :moreinteresting

The only non conference games that were lost in the last 3 years were to VA Tech. So yep you're right the evidence is there to support your statement.

As far as the Fresno Game goes, it would have been over a lot sooner if Martinez wouldn't have brain-farted his way through the first half. Or if Compton, Fisher, Cassidy and Blatchford (sp) weren't out of position and slow to react on pass plays. :facepalm:

Also I thought the dropped passes were a thing of the past once Gilmore was fired? Kinnie should have done less planking and talking to the media this off season and more pass catching drills. So far this season he has been thrown to 8 times and dropped 7 of those.

My post had absolutely "nothing" to do with it being a conference game or not. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

We came back and won the game after being down at halftime. That's something that doesn't happen every day (Clownahan was 0 - 19 when down at halftime as an example). Geeeesh.......

 

[kchusker_chris]

Unfortunately I didn't get to watch the game or listen to much more than 3 or 4 mintues every half as I was committed to an event. I came home to watch and the wife had killed the DVR so....it sounds like I will be saved the stress. That being said...to me it sounds like the D-line greatly underperformed. I know several people I respect that have a good pulse on the program are very concerned. Its just as I had stated this summer...we're not as good there as we think. I personally think moving to a 3 lb system will hurt us this year. We were very efficient as a defense when we put in the peso a year ago and when we run it in practice we are very good still as the personnel groupings seem to be better. I hope we run it more in the future.

I know the offense was frustrating at times. I did hear a snip it from one coach that this week was similar to last week in that they decided to work on some things they've had continual issues with at times during the game rather than always call it based on what the defense was giving us. That makes me uncomfortable that we make decisions like that.

Woah, what?

On two levels. First, I completely agree that we shouldn't be doing that stuff in actual games. It is a mindset that does not seem to be typical of Bo, no matter who the opponent. Such as what you mentioned with the audibles and Taylor being told to just run the play so they could get it on tape. Screw that - these audibles are pretty new to Taylor, let him do it as much as he can, and let him get some confidence as they start working.

Second, I thought the hallmark of this new offense is that they weren't going to call it based on what the defense gave us.

I don't know where that game from. This offense is specifically designed to create mismatched base on defensive schemes and personnel. We attack and then exploit once they try to adjust to those mismatches. If thats not taking what the defense gives us I don't know what is. If we were running a power I then we'd be trying to impose on the D but I don't think we can do that well enough. Talking with some people (I still haven't watched the game) I was told we ran 4 different types of option again with the most success out of the diamond sets and the veer sets. Our belly option apparently fell flat on its face again and is weak. Although he thought maybe as the season goes on we might get the full back involved in that set and it would help open it up, but right now...that's the one that gets shut down.

You have to remember that zoogies has this knee-jerk reaction to anything that he perceives as a slight against Bill Callahan or Shawn Watson. He's still fighting that battle, four years and one year later.

Apparently those windmills won't tilt at themselves.

Am I missing the mention of BC/Watson in here? (maybe it's you that won't let it go) I think what he is referring to is Beck stating at the beginning of the year that our offense was going to dictate the game, not their defense. We were going to run what we run - and their defense can try to adjust. We were all really happy about that - i think the quote was splattered around Huskerboard multiple times. But, that pretty much completely counters what da skers said (and he's usually right) - so I guess I can see some concern if we are going into a game knowing that the first 2 quarters are a "guage" for how our offense should be executed the second 2 quarters. It seems that's how the first 2 games have gone though. We dip our foot into the water, test the temp - then adjust. That works against the Fresno States - won't work when you're down 24 to Wisconsin before you've got a good reading.

 

[NoLongerN]

That doesn't explain why our O-Lines and D-Lines are getting pushed around by FCS and WAC teams.

Ya, this is what we've learned after the first two games.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

My post had absolutely "nothing" to do with it being a conference game or not. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

We came back and won the game after being down at halftime. That's something that doesn't happen every day (Clownahan was 0 - 19 when down at halftime as an example). Geeeesh.......

Was Billy C here the last 2 years?

We were down at half to Mizzou in 09 & ISU last year. Both wins. I get it though; Watson would have been here the last two years so that is an automatic loss. :dunno :thumbs :madash

My fault for assuming you were talking about Non Conference games since that is what this game was. I won’t let my assumptions get in the way again.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'm glad that we found a way to win, and if you want some honest positive and negative reactions to what went on against Fresno State, check out my post in What Did We Learn-Fresno State edition.

 

[Joe_5700]

If it was not for Quincy Enunwa's blast in the back to Fresno's DB after the Martinez pick, I am convinced we are down 21-7 to Fresno State a few plays later. We luck out again with a Martinez fumble and the Fresno State player who recovers is out of bounds. I however like how the offense and Martinez bounced back in the second half. It was refereshing to see because this team usually starts out hot offensively and then cools. I also liked what I saw form the entire offense in the drive to ice the game. Tough runs by Rex and better blocking up front. I almost forgot the busted coverages in the secondary. There were two major blunders that need to get fixed quick. We lucked out on the first one as the ball was over thrown. I truly think we see a completely different team come Saturday. That is if we can shake off our home field disadvantage...

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

My post had absolutely "nothing" to do with it being a conference game or not. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

We came back and won the game after being down at halftime. That's something that doesn't happen every day (Clownahan was 0 - 19 when down at halftime as an example). Geeeesh.......

Was Billy C here the last 2 years?

We were down at half to Mizzou in 09 & ISU last year. Both wins. I get it though; Watson would have been here the last two years so that is an automatic loss. :dunno :thumbs :madash

My fault for assuming you were talking about Non Conference games since that is what this game was. I won’t let my assumptions get in the way again.

I think what bshirt was trying to say was that Nebraska made adjustments from first half to second half in a close game. We didn't continuously pound our head against the wall expecting things to change and that benefitted greatly. In 09 Mizzou, I think we did a great job changing the game plan but against Iowa State last year, we really just got lucky, and didn't do anything to change our offense and make the defense adjust to it.

 

[bshirt]

My post had absolutely "nothing" to do with it being a conference game or not. What the hell does that have to do with anything?

We came back and won the game after being down at halftime. That's something that doesn't happen every day (Clownahan was 0 - 19 when down at halftime as an example). Geeeesh.......

Was Billy C here the last 2 years?

We were down at half to Mizzou in 09 & ISU last year. Both wins. I get it though; Watson would have been here the last two years so that is an automatic loss. :dunno :thumbs :madash

My fault for assuming you were talking about Non Conference games since that is what this game was. I won't let my assumptions get in the way again.

Wow, you're an experienced mod at setting up strawmen. Being a "conference" game or not had zero to with the previous commentary I posted. Zero. You want to dream up that it was.....more power to ya.

Obviously it's not written in stone we would have lost the game and nobody said it was "automatic". Except you. Again......you're good at it! :clap

 

[knapplc]

Am I missing the mention of BC/Watson in here?

Yes, you are.

 

[da skers]

Unfortunately I didn't get to watch the game or listen to much more than 3 or 4 mintues every half as I was committed to an event. I came home to watch and the wife had killed the DVR so....it sounds like I will be saved the stress. That being said...to me it sounds like the D-line greatly underperformed. I know several people I respect that have a good pulse on the program are very concerned. Its just as I had stated this summer...we're not as good there as we think. I personally think moving to a 3 lb system will hurt us this year. We were very efficient as a defense when we put in the peso a year ago and when we run it in practice we are very good still as the personnel groupings seem to be better. I hope we run it more in the future.

I know the offense was frustrating at times. I did hear a snip it from one coach that this week was similar to last week in that they decided to work on some things they've had continual issues with at times during the game rather than always call it based on what the defense was giving us. That makes me uncomfortable that we make decisions like that.

Woah, what?

On two levels. First, I completely agree that we shouldn't be doing that stuff in actual games. It is a mindset that does not seem to be typical of Bo, no matter who the opponent. Such as what you mentioned with the audibles and Taylor being told to just run the play so they could get it on tape. Screw that - these audibles are pretty new to Taylor, let him do it as much as he can, and let him get some confidence as they start working.

Second, I thought the hallmark of this new offense is that they weren't going to call it based on what the defense gave us.

I don't know where that game from. This offense is specifically designed to create mismatched base on defensive schemes and personnel. We attack and then exploit once they try to adjust to those mismatches. If thats not taking what the defense gives us I don't know what is. If we were running a power I then we'd be trying to impose on the D but I don't think we can do that well enough. Talking with some people (I still haven't watched the game) I was told we ran 4 different types of option again with the most success out of the diamond sets and the veer sets. Our belly option apparently fell flat on its face again and is weak. Although he thought maybe as the season goes on we might get the full back involved in that set and it would help open it up, but right now...that's the one that gets shut down.

You have to remember that zoogies has this knee-jerk reaction to anything that he perceives as a slight against Bill Callahan or Shawn Watson. He's still fighting that battle, four years and one year later.

Apparently those windmills won't tilt at themselves.

Am I missing the mention of BC/Watson in here? (maybe it's you that won't let it go) I think what he is referring to is Beck stating at the beginning of the year that our offense was going to dictate the game, not their defense. We were going to run what we run - and their defense can try to adjust. We were all really happy about that - i think the quote was splattered around Huskerboard multiple times. But, that pretty much completely counters what da skers said (and he's usually right) - so I guess I can see some concern if we are going into a game knowing that the first 2 quarters are a "guage" for how our offense should be executed the second 2 quarters. It seems that's how the first 2 games have gone though. We dip our foot into the water, test the temp - then adjust. That works against the Fresno States - won't work when you're down 24 to Wisconsin before you've got a good reading.

Ummmmm . .. . and how do you think they build a game plan? By drawing plays from a hat? They break down the film look at tendencies, personnel, etc and build a way to attack perceived weaknesses. We run those plays, they try to adjust, we kick them in the nuts when they do that because we knew what we are going to do once they start to move people to adjust to our attack. So. . I would say that's dictating a the game. We didn't do that a lot in the past. We ran plays we thought would work but had no plan if they adjusted to us. We haven't really done that expect for a few series in the second half. Fresno basically played completely different than they had in the past year on both offense and defense. They game planned very well and we still adjusted and won.

And the first two games were more about us trying things than us attacking them. (or so I've been told)That should change next game.

 

[zoogs]

I don't know where that game from. This offense is specifically designed to create mismatched base on defensive schemes and personnel. We attack and then exploit once they try to adjust to those mismatches. If thats not taking what the defense gives us I don't know what is. If we were running a power I then we'd be trying to impose on the D but I don't think we can do that well enough. Talking with some people (I still haven't watched the game) I was told we ran 4 different types of option again with the most success out of the diamond sets and the veer sets. Our belly option apparently fell flat on its face again and is weak. Although he thought maybe as the season goes on we might get the full back involved in that set and it would help open it up, but right now...that's the one that gets shut down.

"Taking what the defense gives us" is almost a curse word among Husker fans. It was an expectation of the new offensive staff, that it would be different, that we would now instead "take what we want."

This is a pretty relevant current discussion, and the shock in my post was not directed at you. It points to a big difference in the reality of what our current staff is doing, compared to the expectation.

I remember now when I pointed to Beck's "we will go where the defense ain't" comments in the offseason as a sign that we are still going to 'take what the defense gives us.' That was largely disagreed with. Few of us had much of an idea of what kind of offense to expect this year and honestly through two games, our identity is not all that much the clearer. I do kinda wonder if we are headed back into a power-I direction, if that is the ultimate goal here.

But not being a dictatorial, imposing power team - if that is indeed what the staff does not want to do - is a pretty significant distinction to be made. I think it is the right call; goodness knows we do not have the OL for the latter. The identity of the offense is a key question for us this year, and I think we're all waiting to see what it will be.

All told though, I am pretty excited to see what we throw out at Washington, if this is what we have gotten by just screwing around and trying plays just to put them on film.

 

[knapplc]

"Taking what the defense gives us" is almost a curse word among Husker fans. It was an expectation of the new offensive staff, that it would be different, that we would now instead "take what we want."

This is a pretty relevant current discussion, and the shock in my post was not directed at you. It points to a big difference in the reality of what our current staff is doing, compared to the expectation.

I remember now when I pointed to Beck's "we will go where the defense ain't" comments in the offseason as a sign that we are still going to 'take what the defense gives us.' That was largely disagreed with. Few of us had much of an idea of what kind of offense to expect this year and honestly through two games, our identity is not all that much the clearer. I do kinda wonder if we are headed back into a power-I direction, if that is the ultimate goal here.

But not being a dictatorial, imposing power team - if that is indeed what the staff does not want to do - is a pretty significant distinction to be made. I think it is the right call; goodness knows we do not have the OL for the latter. The identity of the offense is a key question for us this year, and I think we're all waiting to see what it will be.

All told though, I am pretty excited to see what we throw out at Washington, if this is what we have gotten by just screwing around and trying plays just to put them on film.

Exactly, zoogs. We've had a months-long (years-long?) conversation about the differences in the ways fans react to terminology used by different coaches. "Multiple" was one people ripped Watson for using, then when Bo started using it all the time.... crickets. "Take what the defense gives you" is another Watson phrase that was verboten, then if I'm not mistaken Beck said largely the same thing this past offseason.

 

[zoogs]

Yes! That was my whole point, knapplc. I am glad we are on the same page

Another thing...when Beck calls a pass on a 3rd-and-2 and gets torn down for it, I will be there defending him. And it won't be any BC/Watson ghost argument type thing. It is just because I think you can't always run it on 3rd and short.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'd rather try punching a brick wall a couple of times, and if it doesn't work bring out a bulldozer and plow it over (Beck) rather than continuously trying to punch the wall in hopes that it will break and then be totally shocked as to why it didn't (Watson)