Packages

[huskers1]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

 

[Blackdeuce]

I agree. And while they're at it, put Ganz or Witt in the game. At least give them a chance.

 

[billdozer15]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

i can understand why they do it for certain players and not others. You dont always want to play the younger guys, because experience makes up for alot. I believe they put in the younger guys who are grasping things at a quicker pace. They arent going to make up packages for younger guys who cant understand it. I do see your point though. My theory is, if it is to complicated for Cally to explain and you dont fully understand it untill you are a 5th year senior, it is to complicated for college.

 

[strigori]

At this point, Witt should save his redshirt season.

 

[LAHusker]

1+1=3 with this staff.

 

[1Huskernation]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

This really frustates me too!!! You'd think this would have crossed him mind. Obviously not. But, you hear all the coaches talk about getting "the best players on the field." But then we never see them. I'm sure glad Niles Paul got that catch against Nevada! Good Grief.

 

[billdozer15]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

This really frustates me too!!! You'd think this would have crossed him mind. Obviously not. But, you hear all the coaches talk about getting "the best players on the field." But then we never see them. I'm sure glad Niles Paul got that catch against Nevada! Good Grief.

That was worth burning a redshirt for dont you think? :sarcasm

 

[NPhusker]

I think part of the reason they do this is because a running back can make a bigger impact on the game than a WR of TE but if they are going to simplify some packages for somone why dont we do it for Maurice Purify. He is by far our best play maker, instead of telling him "double wring right, red right c left, cloud 99, z arrow, Y colorado, X train, blah blah blah" just tell MO to run to the 50 yard line, turn right and Sam will throw you the ball. Why does Callahan have to make it so complicated that his best player doesnt know what to do.

 

[I am I]

what pisses me off is they have 'packages' that depend on about 7 things that go on during the game:

1. down and distance

2. score

3. side of the field

4. which QT it is

5. running or passing down

6. what's on Callahan's script

7. if the sky is blue that day

what about just giving the ball to a great athelete and let him make something happen? like the kid from LSU who runs about a 4.11 40yd dash? they just snap the ball and hand it off in open space or just flick it out to him. or like OU, just run a 10 yard out and let the player make a play.

i know, i know...the coaches know how to use their players and make game time decisions and see them in practice everyday; but if players are thinking too hard or things are too complicated and only certain times can a players' "package" be used then it's not about just playin some damn football, it's way too much about X's and O's.

 

[admo]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

I hear ya. And it's a good and obvious point. I think it comes down to the coach's control & the thought of possibly making a mistake (good grief). So many players that barely see the field. Where's Wil Henry near the goal line? Meno Holt, Niles Paul, Curenski, on and on and on. Every little bit of experience during quality game time builds towards the future. The old saying "they dont lose great players, the just reload".

Oh well, maybe things will be different. Gonna stay positive.

 

[bethelbacker]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

GREAT post. I couldn't agree more.

 

[phantomhusker]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

GREAT post. I couldn't agree more.

Callahan and company are just clueless about whats really happening out there

 

[Hunter94]

"He's a great prospect, he's going to be an excellent player," Callahan said. "In the last two weeks, he's really played some consistent football. . . . He's still growing up, learning the system, but to his credit we've given him a package of plays that he can deal with and have success with, and he's adapted extremely well."

This was in the Omaha World Herald about Castille and I believe was said at the conference on Tuesday. My question is they obviously made his package smaller than someone like Lucky, so why cant they do the same with Paul or Curenski? Give both of them a different set of 20 plays therefore we have much more athletic ability on the field at all times. I mean if you are going to take out purfiy on 50% of the plays at least you are putting in an athlete instead of someone like Erickson. I mean Paul runs a 4.4 and Curenski I believe has run a mid 4.3 so why not get him on the field? Or even Henry, put him in and let him run vertical on some plays. It just blows my mind that they do this with castille then they have brooks, henry, holt, paul, curenski, and mcneil on the bench and refuse to put them in until they know the COMPLETE offense.

GREAT post. I couldn't agree more.

Callahan and company are just clueless about whats really happening out there

yep, by his standard you have to know all the dumb a$$ wco plays and formations to play. knowing only a handfull of plays still won't get a talented athlete on the field even for a few plays.

i am betting the next coach won't be wasting talent on complex plays leaving talent on the bench.

will be soooooooooooo happy when this bad guy is gone. what a wasted 4 years for our program.