Postmortem: Nebraska's Offense, Full Circle

[walksalone]

Funny how an unbiased outside party looks at our season and draws a line at Martinez' injury. It's almost as if that's where all of our trouble started this year. :dunno

The writing was on the wall even during those games. Lest we forget about the offensive performace against SDSU and texa$$ when T-Mart was healthy. And even when we were hanging 40-50 points on some happiless scrub team, the majority of those scores were big plays. Rarely did this offense have 8, 10, or 12 play sustained drives end in touchdowns, even against the scrubs.

T-Marts injury did not make our offense fail. The injury just highlighted how inept this offense is when everything is not 100%.

I know you've read this board, and these Martinez discussions, often enough to know the answers to the problems you pose. Why do you (and others) persist in throwing Martinez under the bus for SDSU? Or for Texas? Can you explain that to me?

Also, can you explain which offense doesn't look inept when everything isn't 100%? I seem to remember the 1994 Huskers struggling quite a bit in a few games when our QBs went down, yet the rest of the offense was healthy as horses. What offense doesn't struggle when their best player goes out?

The reason is because if you go back and look at that game (or the Texas game) you will see T-Mart floundering in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as he did post ankle injury. If you put SDSU and Texas' defensive highlights in a reel along with the defensive highlights for A&M, Oklahoma, and Washington, you would see a consistent theme. I mean freaking identical.

Now you want to say that somehow the QB being tossed around like a rag doll in those clips had an ankle injury halfway through that montage, and that the injury had an effect on the outcome? No way. I'm sure it didn't help, but it's not the underlying problem. The real problem is that the offense depicted in that montage is being led by a coaching staff that has absolutely no idea how to put it's passing-challenged QB in the best position to succeed. All the rest in the world for T-Mart's ankle isn't going to fix that.

This whole T-Mart arguement, is a moot point.

The OC should have had a clue that his QB was hurt. At that point you go to the head coach, say that a change needs to be made, or you make the attempt to gameplan around the injury.

T-Mart doesn't have the final say whether he is in the game or not. It's the HC or the OC. Not the kid with the gimpy ankle.

 

[suh_fan93]

I don't even want to talk about the 2010 offense anymore. I want to fast forward to spring ball. In reality it really isn't that far away.

 

[knapplc]

The reason is because if you go back and look at that game (or the Texas game) you will see T-Mart floundering in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as he did post ankle injury. If you put SDSU and Texas' defensive highlights in a reel along with the defensive highlights for A&M, Oklahoma, and Washington, you would see a consistent theme. I mean freaking identical.

Now you want to say that somehow the QB being tossed around like a rag doll in those clips had an ankle injury halfway through that montage, and that the injury had an effect on the outcome? No way. I'm sure it didn't help, but it's not the underlying problem. The real problem is that the offense depicted in that montage is being led by a coaching staff that has absolutely no idea how to put it's passing-challenged QB in the best position to succeed. All the rest in the world for T-Mart's ankle isn't going to fix that.

So you're saying that an ankle injury on a running quarterback did not affect his ability to run. And your evidence for that is the fact that he had a bad game against Texas (nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game) and against SDSU (again, nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game).

I'd love to like in a magic world where injuries don't affect a player's ability to perform, but unfortunately, that's not reality.

 

[Blaze1up]

The man was hurt and should of never played the rest of the season if they weren't going to adjust to his injury in the play calling which they never did. If he can't run there is no zone read-option play that will work, so you can chalk this one up on the coaching. Same with Zac Lee last season he couldn't do that play because he couldn't run.

 

[robsker]

The reason is because if you go back and look at that game (or the Texas game) you will see T-Mart floundering in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as he did post ankle injury. If you put SDSU and Texas' defensive highlights in a reel along with the defensive highlights for A&M, Oklahoma, and Washington, you would see a consistent theme. I mean freaking identical.

Now you want to say that somehow the QB being tossed around like a rag doll in those clips had an ankle injury halfway through that montage, and that the injury had an effect on the outcome? No way. I'm sure it didn't help, but it's not the underlying problem. The real problem is that the offense depicted in that montage is being led by a coaching staff that has absolutely no idea how to put it's passing-challenged QB in the best position to succeed. All the rest in the world for T-Mart's ankle isn't going to fix that.

So you're saying that an ankle injury on a running quarterback did not affect his ability to run. And your evidence for that is the fact that he had a bad game against Texas (nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game) and against SDSU (again, nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game).

I'd love to like in a magic world where injuries don't affect a player's ability to perform, but unfortunately, that's not reality.

Yep. The injury played a major role not only in ability to run... but maybe in willingness to get hit as well. I refer again to a conversation I had with a Washington football player (whose eligibility ran out last year and who did not play this year --- but hangs with the team) --- he said that Washington players who knew well on defensnse told him that they were convinced from seeing on film that if TMart took one or two good hits early in the game that he would be entirely ineffective the rest of the way out. That is, seemingly the case.

One implication of getting injured this season was a timidity maybe on TMarts behalf the rest of the way out. I don't know... but I can tell you this.... the UW defense felt TMart would fold once he was hit hard. And... he was hit hard early and was ineffective there after. Who knows...

 

[HotGrillonGrillAction]

TM will be a legend at NU and a SERIOUS Heisman contender........if not next year - the next.

 

[junior4949]

The reason is because if you go back and look at that game (or the Texas game) you will see T-Mart floundering in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as he did post ankle injury. If you put SDSU and Texas' defensive highlights in a reel along with the defensive highlights for A&M, Oklahoma, and Washington, you would see a consistent theme. I mean freaking identical.

Now you want to say that somehow the QB being tossed around like a rag doll in those clips had an ankle injury halfway through that montage, and that the injury had an effect on the outcome? No way. I'm sure it didn't help, but it's not the underlying problem. The real problem is that the offense depicted in that montage is being led by a coaching staff that has absolutely no idea how to put it's passing-challenged QB in the best position to succeed. All the rest in the world for T-Mart's ankle isn't going to fix that.

So you're saying that an ankle injury on a running quarterback did not affect his ability to run. And your evidence for that is the fact that he had a bad game against Texas (nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game) and against SDSU (again, nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game).

I'd love to like in a magic world where injuries don't affect a player's ability to perform, but unfortunately, that's not reality.

Yep. The injury played a major role not only in ability to run... but maybe in willingness to get hit as well. I refer again to a conversation I had with a Washington football player (whose eligibility ran out last year and who did not play this year --- but hangs with the team) --- he said that Washington players who knew well on defensnse told him that they were convinced from seeing on film that if TMart took one or two good hits early in the game that he would be entirely ineffective the rest of the way out. That is, seemingly the case.

One implication of getting injured this season was a timidity maybe on TMarts behalf the rest of the way out. I don't know... but I can tell you this.... the UW defense felt TMart would fold once he was hit hard. And... he was hit hard early and was ineffective there after. Who knows...

So, you're basically saying Martinez is another John Elway? Elway when hit was basically done for the game. This is why Denver got beat so bad under Reeves in the Super Bowls. I believe at least two different teams broke scoring records against Denver in those years. All a defense had to do was get a good hit or two on Elway to give him happy feet and quick errant throws the rest of the game.

 

[robsker]

The reason is because if you go back and look at that game (or the Texas game) you will see T-Mart floundering in EXACTLY THE SAME WAY as he did post ankle injury. If you put SDSU and Texas' defensive highlights in a reel along with the defensive highlights for A&M, Oklahoma, and Washington, you would see a consistent theme. I mean freaking identical.

Now you want to say that somehow the QB being tossed around like a rag doll in those clips had an ankle injury halfway through that montage, and that the injury had an effect on the outcome? No way. I'm sure it didn't help, but it's not the underlying problem. The real problem is that the offense depicted in that montage is being led by a coaching staff that has absolutely no idea how to put it's passing-challenged QB in the best position to succeed. All the rest in the world for T-Mart's ankle isn't going to fix that.

So you're saying that an ankle injury on a running quarterback did not affect his ability to run. And your evidence for that is the fact that he had a bad game against Texas (nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game) and against SDSU (again, nevermind the fact that the WHOLE TEAM had a bad game).

I'd love to like in a magic world where injuries don't affect a player's ability to perform, but unfortunately, that's not reality.

Yep. The injury played a major role not only in ability to run... but maybe in willingness to get hit as well. I refer again to a conversation I had with a Washington football player (whose eligibility ran out last year and who did not play this year --- but hangs with the team) --- he said that Washington players who knew well on defensnse told him that they were convinced from seeing on film that if TMart took one or two good hits early in the game that he would be entirely ineffective the rest of the way out. That is, seemingly the case.

One implication of getting injured this season was a timidity maybe on TMarts behalf the rest of the way out. I don't know... but I can tell you this.... the UW defense felt TMart would fold once he was hit hard. And... he was hit hard early and was ineffective there after. Who knows...

So, you're basically saying Martinez is another John Elway? Elway when hit was basically done for the game. This is why Denver got beat so bad under Reeves in the Super Bowls. I believe at least two different teams broke scoring records against Denver in those years. All a defense had to do was get a good hit or two on Elway to give him happy feet and quick errant throws the rest of the game.

Actually, I am not saying that --- because I have not looked at film (my DVR'ed televised games) so as to see if the premise actually correlates with observation. But.... the UW ex-player I ran into at the hotel the day after the game in San Diego --- who, by his testimony still attends UW (but whose eligibility is completed) and who hangs with guys on the team... he said that this was the premise that UW operated upon --- hit TMart a few times and he is then ineffective the rest of that game (timid, shies away from contact, tentative, less focused). Can't say if he is right or not... but this was why, when asked whether he was surprised that UW shut down our offense entirely, this guy said "not at all."

 

[knapplc]

Funny thing about that is, they hit him a few times in September. How'd that turn out for them?

You can't base anything about Martinez or Nebraska as a whole on the Holiday Bowl. NOBODY showed up for that game.

 

[Hercules]

Washington shut down our offense in the Holiday bowl because they really cared, and we really didn't. There's nothing more to it. People are putting way too much stock into that game.

 

[robsker]

Washington shut down our offense in the Holiday bowl because they really cared, and we really didn't. There's nothing more to it. People are putting way too much stock into that game.

OK.... If your premise is correct... that NU did not care about that game in San Diago... then it is reasonable to assert that this is worse than simply being inept on the field --- would you not rather have our team working hard and focused yet lose than to lose because the team does not care? If this team thinks so lowly of the NU tradition of playing with heart and drive on every snap, every game, regardless of score... enough so that they do not care about getting embarrased (once again) on national TV... then the problems with the NU football team are deeper and more ingrained they we might think. If you are correct that the team did not show up caring... and the coaching staff allowed this to be the case... then the problem with this team is not a weak offense or a bad OC... it is lack of character and heart. It is much easier fixing schemes and refining X's and O's than it is instilling charater. If you are correct, then our coaches need to be wildly taken to task... all of them... starting with the head coach. Allowing a team to enter a game w/o the desire to win is inexcusable.

As it were, I do think they cared... and I disagree with your premise. They cared. They got whipped anyway. Other facters likely played a role. Too distracted? Maybe. But they cared. At least I really hope that they did. And... the UW game as a bowl game mattered... a great deal. Every time the team dons the red "N" and represents our school and the fine people of Nebraska it matters. Every time one has the oppertunity to snap back after adversity, it matters.

 

[robsker]

Funny thing about that is, they hit him a few times in September. How'd that turn out for them?

You can't base anything about Martinez or Nebraska as a whole on the Holiday Bowl. NOBODY showed up for that game.

Did TMart take any rocking hits in September? I am not sure, I'd have to look at the game again to see. He might not have. And, even if he did, he was not then trying to recover from an injury. How a person takes to being hit when absolutely healthy versus how that same person takes to a hit when partially ailing and trying to recover from an injury are potentially two very different things.

How aggressively, in general, did TMart play prior to injury versus after injury? How focused, in general, was TMart prior to injury versus after? Remember all the "ice in his viens" and "never rattled" talk before the injury? After the injury did he appear to be rattled and confused often?

Not that I blame the kid at all. The point is, I agree with those that posit that the TMart injury was huge this year --- perhaps not only in limiting what he could do...physically and in terms of confidence... but maybe even limiting what he was willing to do. And, again... the UW guys certainly felt that one or two rocking early hits and TMart would be done. Looking at the game again, I'd say that they where right. Perhaps the correlation cannot be drawn... or it might. But early in the 1st quarter he got rocked. He never hit the the hole hard for the rest of the game and he did appear rattled from that point on. It happens. He is young. But let us not discount the enormity of that injury. TMart had two seasons this year. The before injury and the after injury --- and the caliber of play his first "season" was much better in every way. Other facters play a role too.. of this we can be certain. But that injury loomed large.

 

[knapplc]

OK.... If your premise is correct... that NU did not care about that game in San Diago... then it is reasonable to assert that this is worse than simply being inept on the field --- would you not rather have our team working hard and focused yet lose than to lose because the team does not care? If this team thinks so lowly of the NU tradition of playing with heart and drive on every snap, every game, regardless of score... enough so that they do not care about getting embarrased (once again) on national TV... then the problems with the NU football team are deeper and more ingrained they we might think. If you are correct that the team did not show up caring... and the coaching staff allowed this to be the case... then the problem with this team is not a weak offense or a bad OC... it is lack of character and heart. It is much easier fixing schemes and refining X's and O's than it is instilling charater. If you are correct, then our coaches need to be wildly taken to task... all of them... starting with the head coach. Allowing a team to enter a game w/o the desire to win is inexcusable.
As it were, I do think they cared... and I disagree with your premise. They cared. They got whipped anyway. Other facters likely played a role. Too distracted? Maybe. But they cared. At least I really hope that they did. And... the UW game as a bowl game mattered... a great deal. Every time the team dons the red "N" and represents our school and the fine people of Nebraska it matters. Every time one has the oppertunity to snap back after adversity, it matters.

We are correct that the team didn't care about the game. The team and the staff considered it a slap in the face - one of a series of slaps - that they were simply not going to put up with. The coaches didn't care to be there, the team didn't care to be there, and the product on the field showed very clearly.

A number of players were literally counting down the days before they were out of the program during December. I saw several such posts on Facebook myself. Several players, notably several Seniors, most certainly did NOT care about that game. They had already mentally checked out of the program, and were focusing on their futures.

Is it a deep-seated problem? Maybe. We very clearly overlooked SDSU this year. Our preparation for Texas was clearly flawed. We allowed the BS calls to get to us, both players and coaches. It appears from circumstantial evidence that all of the coaches are not on the same page on both sides of the ball. There has been a season-long dysfunction on this team that needs to be fixed.

Why the dysfunction? There are rumors aplenty, but little solid evidence. Some say the team was split over the decision to start Martinez over Lee/Green. Some say there was an offensive philosophy shift mid-stream in Fall Camp. Some say there are coaches not pulling their weight. Some say it's because Bo is good Defensive Coordinator material but not good Head Coach material - or at least, not good yet. Some say the impending move to the Big 10 made our last Big XII season so important that the team played tight. Some say the impending move to the Big 10 killed interest inour last Big XII season. Like I said, tons of rumors, not much substance to back any of it up.

Whatever happened, it's all fixable. It's also all a concern, and we could rebound or continue the downward spiral that started at the A&M game. This is where we find out how strong our team and our coaches - in particular Bo - are.

Personally, I think we rebuild during the off season, make some key changes, and start fresh in the Big 10 and do tolerably well. I think we make a name for ourselves right here, this first year in-conference. Maybe we don't play for the conference title this year, but at the very least we make our presence felt, in a big way.

We're going to be fine. This season sucked and in particular our bowl game sucked. But we're Nebraska. We're going to be back.

Twelve weeks until the Spring Game. Personally, I can't wait. :bigredn:

 

[bshirt]

Funny how an unbiased outside party looks at our season and draws a line at Martinez' injury. It's almost as if that's where all of our trouble started this year. :dunno

The writing was on the wall even during those games. Lest we forget about the offensive performace against SDSU and texa$$ when T-Mart was healthy. And even when we were hanging 40-50 points on some happiless scrub team, the majority of those scores were big plays. Rarely did this offense have 8, 10, or 12 play sustained drives end in touchdowns, even against the scrubs.

T-Marts injury did not make our offense fail. The injury just highlighted how inept this offense is when everything is not 100%.

Wow.

For the Texas game Tmart's "problem" was our wrs/rbs dropping his passes. I guess he should have put super glue on the ball.

Ranked teams like Missouri & Okie State are scrub teams? Geeesh....

 

[robsker]

OK.... If your premise is correct... that NU did not care about that game in San Diago... then it is reasonable to assert that this is worse than simply being inept on the field --- would you not rather have our team working hard and focused yet lose than to lose because the team does not care? If this team thinks so lowly of the NU tradition of playing with heart and drive on every snap, every game, regardless of score... enough so that they do not care about getting embarrased (once again) on national TV... then the problems with the NU football team are deeper and more ingrained they we might think. If you are correct that the team did not show up caring... and the coaching staff allowed this to be the case... then the problem with this team is not a weak offense or a bad OC... it is lack of character and heart. It is much easier fixing schemes and refining X's and O's than it is instilling charater. If you are correct, then our coaches need to be wildly taken to task... all of them... starting with the head coach. Allowing a team to enter a game w/o the desire to win is inexcusable.
As it were, I do think they cared... and I disagree with your premise. They cared. They got whipped anyway. Other facters likely played a role. Too distracted? Maybe. But they cared. At least I really hope that they did. And... the UW game as a bowl game mattered... a great deal. Every time the team dons the red "N" and represents our school and the fine people of Nebraska it matters. Every time one has the oppertunity to snap back after adversity, it matters.

We are correct that the team didn't care about the game. The team and the staff considered it a slap in the face - one of a series of slaps - that they were simply not going to put up with. The coaches didn't care to be there, the team didn't care to be there, and the product on the field showed very clearly.

A number of players were literally counting down the days before they were out of the program during December. I saw several such posts on Facebook myself. Several players, notably several Seniors, most certainly did NOT care about that game. They had already mentally checked out of the program, and were focusing on their futures.

Is it a deep-seated problem? Maybe. We very clearly overlooked SDSU this year. Our preparation for Texas was clearly flawed. We allowed the BS calls to get to us, both players and coaches. It appears from circumstantial evidence that all of the coaches are not on the same page on both sides of the ball. There has been a season-long dysfunction on this team that needs to be fixed.

Why the dysfunction? There are rumors aplenty, but little solid evidence. Some say the team was split over the decision to start Martinez over Lee/Green. Some say there was an offensive philosophy shift mid-stream in Fall Camp. Some say there are coaches not pulling their weight. Some say it's because Bo is good Defensive Coordinator material but not good Head Coach material - or at least, not good yet. Some say the impending move to the Big 10 made our last Big XII season so important that the team played tight. Some say the impending move to the Big 10 killed interest inour last Big XII season. Like I said, tons of rumors, not much substance to back any of it up.

Whatever happened, it's all fixable. It's also all a concern, and we could rebound or continue the downward spiral that started at the A&M game. This is where we find out how strong our team and our coaches - in particular Bo - are.

Personally, I think we rebuild during the off season, make some key changes, and start fresh in the Big 10 and do tolerably well. I think we make a name for ourselves right here, this first year in-conference. Maybe we don't play for the conference title this year, but at the very least we make our presence felt, in a big way.

We're going to be fine. This season sucked and in particular our bowl game sucked. But we're Nebraska. We're going to be back.

Twelve weeks until the Spring Game. Personally, I can't wait. :bigredn:

Great post Knapp.

Agreed that there must be dysfunction on this team in a major way. Precisely what... as you say, can't really tell. That there is dysfunction however... that seems clear. That is the distraction I intimated in my posts. Would you not agree that there is far more of a problem than X's and O's with this team?

By the way, if the coaches thought that playing UW was a "slap in the face" then their arrogance is a problem and their response to adversity is woefully lacking and they failed their players. Arrogance is a character flaw.